LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA, 


RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 


Class 


SENATOR  JAMES  ROSS 


A  SKETCH  BY  MR.  JAMES  I.  BROWNSON 


SENATOR  JAMES  Ross 


THE  LIFE  AND  TIMES 


OF 


Senator  James  Ross 


A  SKETCH  BY  JAMES  I.   BROWNSON,   ESQ. 


Read  before  the 

Washington  County  Historical  Society 
February  21,  1910 


PRINTED  FOR  THE  SAID  SOCIETY  AT 

THE  OBSERVER  JOB  ROOMS,  WASHINGTON,  PA. 

1910 


-o,0?- 


IV. 


[Mr.  James  Irwin  Brownson,  a  member  of  the  Wash 
ington  County  Historical  Society,  was  born  at  Washington, 
Pa.,  on  January  25,,  1856,  of  Rev.  Dr.  James  I.  and  Eleanor 
M.  (Acheson)  Brownson;  graduated  from  Washington  and 
Jefferson  College  in  1875;  studed  law  with  Mr.  Alexander 
Wilson  and  was  admitted  to  the  Washington  County  Bar 
in  1878.] 


V. 


Introduction  by  the  President 


Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

The  meeting  this  evening  of  the  Washington  County  Historical 
society,  organized  on  January  1,  1901,  is  for  the  ninth  anniversary  of 
its  first  public  meeting,  held  on  February  22,  1901,  the  birthday  of 
George  Washington,  the  first  president  of  the  United  States,  a  day  to 
which  we  always  do  honor. 

Our  exercise  tonight  will  be  the  reading  by  one  of  our  members 
of  a  sketch  of  the  Life  and  Times  of  Senator  James  Ross,  one  of  the 
earliest  members  of  the  Washington  County  Bar,  and  in  his  matured 
years  one  of  the  leading  statesmen  of  our  State  and  Nation.  His  history 
is  almost  wholly  unknown  to  the  men  of  this  generation,  no  detailed 
biography  of  him  having  ever  been  published,  and  it  surely  is  well 
that  our  society  should  make  a  record  of  the  personality  and  work  of 
one  who  was  a  citizen  of  our  town  in  the  earliest  days  of  its  life. 

On  this  occasion  we  will  also  make  a  record  of  the  fact  that  a 
short  time  ago,  our  society,  through  the  kindness  of  Mrs.  Margaret 
Stockton  McKennan,  the  widow  of  the  late  Dr.  Thomas  McKennan 
(whom  many  of  us  knew  so  favorably  and  well)  and  of  her  family, 
became  the  owner  of  the  fine  original  oil-painting  of  James  Ross,  now 
before  this  audience.  This  accession  to  our  collections  is  one  of  our 
greatest  prizes;  and  on  behalf  of  our  society  we  hereby  return  to 
Mrs.  McKennan  and  her  sons  and  daughters  our  profound  thanks  for 
their  gift. 

A  word,  now,  as  to  the  painting  itself.  There  is  no  mark  or  name 
discovered  upon  it,  to  indicate  by  whom  it  was  painted,  but  there  is 
no  doubt  that  it  is  an  original  or  a  replica  of  a  painting  of  James 
Ross  from  life  by  Thomas  Sully,  an  eminent  portrait  painter,  of 
Philadelphia,  who  from  his  own  register  of  portraits  painted  by  him 
from  1801  to  1871,  painted  in  all  the  number  of  1931  of  eminent  persons 
of  his  day:  See  Sully's  Register  of  Portraits,  Vol.  32,  Penna.  Mag.  of 
History,  385;  idem,  Vol.  33,  pp.  22,  147. 

This  register  shows  (33  Penn.  Mag.  of  History,  p.  171),  that  in 
1812  Mr.  Sully  painted  a  "Head"  of  "James  Ross  of  Pittsburg,"  and  in 
1813,  a  "Half-length  of  James  Ross  for  the  Academy  of  Fine  Arts." 
Our  society  has  a  copy  of  Goodman  &  Piggot's  steel  engraving  of  the 
Academy  of  Fine  Arts  painting,  presented  to  us  by  Mr.  Joseph  L. 


VI. 

Delafield,  a  lawyer,  of  25  Nassau  St.,  N.  Y.,  one  of  the  single  living 
family  of  the  descendants  of  James  Ross.  A  comparison  of  the  two 
portraits  will  clearly  show  that  they  are  portraits  of  the  same  person, 
but  that  the  portrait  before  us  is  an  original  or  a  replica  of  the  1812 
painting,  and  not  of  the  Academy  of  Fine  Arts  portrait  of  1813. 

All  that  we  know  certainly  of  our  painting  itself,  and  how  it  has 
reached  us,  is  that  it  was  presented  to  Hon.  Thomas  McKean  Thomp 
son  McKennan,  who  was  the  personal  friend  of  Mr.  Ross,  by  members 
of  the  Washington  County  Bar,  during  Mr.  McKennan's  lifetime. 
Mr.  McKennan  was  for  one  month  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  De 
partment  under  President  Fillmore,  and  died  in  1852,  the  father  of 
Hon.  William  McKennan,  late  the  Judge  of  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 
now  deceased,  and  of  Dr.  Thomas  McKennan,  late  of  East  Maiden 
street,  Washington,  Pa.,  also  deceased.  On  the  death  of  his  father 
the  painting  came  to  Dr.  McKennan,  in  whose  ownership  it  has  re 
mained  until  donated  to  our  society:  See  Crumrine's1  History  of 
Washington  County,  252  n.  6,  and  485. 

Mr.  Brownson,  who  is  to  read  the  Sketch  of  the  Life  and  Times 
of  Senator  James  Ross,  needs  no  introduction  to  your  acquaintance, 
and  I  know  he  will  receive  your  interested  attention. 


The  Life  and  Times  of  Senator  James  Ross 

A  Sketch  by  Mr.  James  I.  Brownson 


James  Ross  was  a  native  of  York  County,  Pennsylva 
nia.  His  grandfather,  Hugh  Ross,  (who  was  a  son  of 
James  Ross  of  Garnet-Fergus,  County  Antrim,  Ireland,) 
came  to  America  some  time  previous  to  the  year  1723,  with 
his  wife  Elizabeth,  and  settled  at  Nelson's  Ferry,  Lancas 
ter  County,  now  McCall  's  Ferry  in  York  County,  in  which 
locality  he  resided  until  his  death,  in  February,  1780. 
Among  the  children  of  Hugh  Ross  was  Joseph  Ross, 
born  in  1738,  who  married  Jane  Graham.  Joseph  and 
Jane  Graham  Ross  lived  in  a  stone  house  that  is  still  stand 
ing,  in  Peachbottom  township,  York  County,  about  one- 
fourth  of  a  mile  north  of  the  town  of  Delta,  and  there  on 
July  12,  1762,  was  born  their  son,  James  Ross,  the  subject 
of  this  sketch. 

The  education  of  James  Ross,  after  a  preliminary  course 
in  a  neighboring  school,  said  to  have  been  the  famous  acad 
emy  of  Robert  Smith  at  Pequea,  Lancaster  County,  was 
pursued  at  the  College  of  New  Jersey,  now  known  as 
Princeton  University. 

After  leaving  college  he  came  across  the  mountains  to 
Washington  County,  and  we  find  him  about  the  year  1782 
engaged  as  a  teacher  in  the  log-cabin  academy  of  Dr.  John 
McMillan,  near  Canonsburg.  Dr.  McMillan,  who  was  ten 
years  his  senior,  had  come  from  Fagg's  Manor,  Chester 
County,  a  place  distant  not  more  than  about  25  miles  from 
the  home  of  Ross's  parents,  becoming  the  pastor  of  the 
Presbyterian  churches  of  Chartiers  and  Pigeon  Creek 
in  1776,  though  deterred  by  the  perilous  state  of  the 


4  SENATOR     JAMES    BOSS. 

western  country  from  bringing  his  family  to  reside 
in  his  field  of  labor  until  1778.  It  was  doubtless  the  pres 
ence  of  McMillan  here  that  led  young  Ross  to  settle  in  this 
region.  As  to  the  extent  of  their  previous  personal  ac 
quaintance  we  are  not  info  lined.  At  the  time  when  Mc 
Millan  made  his  first  journey  to  what  is  now  Washington 
County,  in  1775,  Ross  was  a  boy  of  but  thirteen  years,  and 
he  was  only  sixteen  years  of  age  when  the  former  estab 
lished  his  permanent  residence  here.  Whether  it  was  be 
cause  of  personal  friendship,  or  of  acquaintance  between 
their  families,  or  merely  the  circumstance  that  McMillan 
had  come  from  his  own  neighborhood,  it  is  evident  that 
Ross  was  led  hither  by  the  fact  that  McMillan  was  already 
here. 

It  has  been  said  that  Ross  in  his  young  manhood  saw 
military  service  for  a  time  in  the  war  of  the  Revolution, 
and  it  has  also  been  asserted  that  after  coming  west  he 
went  out  with  Col.  Crawford's  ill-fated  Sandusky  expedi 
tion  in  May,  1782.  Whatever  basis  there  may  be  for  either 
of  these  statements,  certain  it  is  that  he  was  engaged  for 
some  time  in  the  peaceful  pursuit  of  a  teacher  under  Dr. 
McMillan.  Tradition  tells  that  he  at  first  intended  to 
make  the  ministry  his  permanent  calling.  While  occupied 
as  a  teacher  his  attention  was  directed  toward  the  study 
of  the  law  by  Hugh  Henry  Brackenridge,  then  a  lawyer 
living  at  Pittsburgh,  whose  practice  took  him  over  the 
greater  part  of  Western  Pennsylvania,  and  who  after 
wards  became  a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsyl 
vania.  Brackenridge  encouraged  and  assisted  him  by  the 
loan  of  books  to  undertake  a  course  of  study  in  prepara 
tion  for  the  bar.  To  complete  this  preparation  Ross  went 
to  Philadelphia.  On  his  return  he  was  admitted  to  the 
bar  of  Washington  County.  No  record  of  his  admission 
has  been  found,  and  its  exact  date  is  unknown.  The  best 
evidence  on  the  subject  indicates  that  it  was  some  time  in 
the  year  1784.  He  became  a  resident  of  Washington,  and 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  O 

lived  and  maintained  a  law  office  here  until  the  latter  part 
of  1794  or  early  in  1795,  when  he  removed  to  Pittsburgh. 
He  quickly  took  rank  as  a  lawyer  and  came  into  full  prac 
tice.  He  became  widely  known,  and  his  practice  extended 
over  a  number  of  counties.  He  was  admitted  to  the  bar  of 
Fayette  County  in  December,  1784,  to  that  of  Westmore 
land  County  in  1785,  and,  after  the  erection  of  Allegheny 
County  by  the  act  of  September  24,  1788,  he  was  admitted 
in  that  county  on  the  16th  of  the  following  December. 

The  late  Chief  Justice  Agnew,  who  was  acquainted  with 
Senator  Ross  from  about  1820  to  the  time  of  his  death, 
said  of  him :  i l  Nature  gave  Senator  Ross  a  fine  personal 
presence  and  a  sonorous  voice,  which,  with  a  thoroughly 
disciplined  mind,  made  him  a  leader  of  the  bar  for  many 
years ' '. 

Judge  Agnew  also  spoke  particularly  of  the  great  abil 
ity  displayed  by  Ross  in  land  cases,  which  in  the  early 
days  constituted  the  most  important  branch  of  litigation. 
Now,  the  titles  to  land  have  been  so  well  settled  that  it  is 
a  comparatively  rare  thing,  in  Washington  County  or  in 
Allegheny  County,  to  have  an  action  of  ejectment  turn  on 
questions  connected  with  warrants,  original  surveys  or 
patents;  but  in  the  days  when  James  Ross  began  to  prac 
tice  law  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  cases  tried,  and 
most  of  the  cases  of  importance,  were  of  this  character, 
and  it  was  in  such  case's  that  the  greatest  demands  were 
made  upon  the  intellectual  and  legal  abilities  of  the  trial 
lawyer. 

One  case  of  another  type,  in  which  Mr.  Ross  defended 
his  old  friend,  Dr.  McMillan,  deserves  special  mention  on 
account  of  its  local  and  general  interest,  as  well  as  on  ac 
count  of  its  being  a  leading  authority  in  support,  of  a  prop 
osition  of  law  which  Mr.  Ross  successfully  maintained. 

The  Rev.  Thomas  Ledlie  Birch,  a  minister  of  the  Pres 
byterian  Church  of  Ireland,  having  come  to  this  country 


4  SENATOR     JAMES    BOSS. 

and  having  preached  for  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  of 
Washington  for  a  time,  the  congregation  desired  to  have 
him  settled  as  its  pastor.  With  this  in  view  he  applied  to 
the  presbytery  in  1800,  and  again  in  1801,  for  adnr.ssi  ?n 
to  its  membership.  The  presbytery,  however,  having  ex 
amined  Mr.  Birch  upon  the  subject  of  "experimental  re 
ligion",  and  not  being  satisfied  with  the  results  of  the 
examination,  refused  to  receive  him  as  a  member,  or  to 
permit  his  settlement  as  pastor  of  the  Washington  church. 
Dr.  McMillan  seems  to  have  taken  a  leading  part  in  the 
presbytery,  and  to  have  expressed  his  opinion  of  the  min 
isterial  character  of  Mr.  Birch  in  somewhat  forcible  langu 
age.  Subsequently  Mr.  Birch  preferred  charges  before 
the  presbytery  against  Dr.  McMillan  of  unministeml  and 
unchristian  conduct  in  falsely  aspersing  the  complainant's 
character.  In  defending  himself  before  the  presbytery 
McMillan  sought  to  justify  his  having  said  certain  things 
which  he  admitted  having  spoken  of  Birch,  and  in  present 
ing  such  a  defense  he  necessarily  had  to  repeat  certain  cf 
his  former  statements.  The  presbytery,  acquitting  Mc 
Millan  in  every  other  respect,  condemned  him  for  having 
made  use  of  one  expression,  viz.  that  Mr.  Birch  was  "a 
preacher  of  the  devil",  and  for  this  pronounced  upon  him 
an  ecclesiastical  censure,  to  which  he  submitted.  In  1802 
Birch  brought  an  action  for  slander  against  McMillan  in 
the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  Washington  County,  which 
was  transferred  to  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  same  county, 
and  is  therein  docketed  at  No.  8  September  tirm,  1803. 
The  declaration  in  the  case  charged  the  defendant  McMil 
lan  with  having  slandered  the  plaintiff  at  the  hearing  be 
fore  the  presbytery,  the  particular  words  charged  to  have 
been  there  spoken  being  that  he  had  called  the  plaintiff  "a 
liar,  a  drunkard  and  a  preacher  of  the  devil. ' ' 

One  of  the  points  made  by  Mr.  Boss  in  his  defense  of 
McMillan  was  that  what  was  said  by  the  defendant  in  the 
course  of  the  trial  before  the  presbytery  was,  in  legal  par- 


SKETCH    BY    MK.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  0 

lance,  a  "privileged  communication";  that  is  to  say,  the 
plaintiff  having  called  the  defendant  before  an  ecclesiasti 
cal  tribunal,  the  jurisdiction  of  which  they  both  acknowl 
edged,  the  defendant  had  the  right  and  privilege  of  speak 
ing  freely  in  his  defense,  and,  so  long  as  he  did  not  travel 
out  of  the  case  to  slander  the  plaintiff,  the  words  spoken 
by  him  in  the  course  of  his  endeavor  to  exculpate  himself 
were  not  actionable.  It  had  previously  been  well  settled 
that  in  a  court  of  justice  a  charge  o>r  recrimination,  made 
by  a  defendant,  that  is  pertinent  to  the  matter  in  question 
in  the  case,  cannot  be  made  the  subject  of  an  action  for 
slander,  the  reason  for  this  being  that  it  is  essential  to  the 
proper  administration  of  justice  that  every  defendant 
have  freedom  of  speech  in  his  own  defense ;  and  the  con 
tention  of  Mr.  Ross  was  that  the  same  rule  should  be  ap 
plied  to  a  proceeding  before  a  presbytery,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  this  was  not  a  court  of  law  but  a  private 
tribunal  acting  by  the  consent  of  those  who  submitted 
themselves  to  it.  The  applicability  of  such  a  rule  to  trials 
in  denominational  tribunals  was  a  new  point,  and  the  trial 
court  ruled  against  the  contention  of  Mr.  Ross,  but  the 
Supreme  Court,  in  an  opinion  by  Chief  Justice  Tilghman, 
sustained  the  point  he  made  and  reversed  the  judgment 
rendered  against  Dr.  McMillan:  1  Binney's  Reports  page 
178.  A  new  trial  having  been  awarded,  the  case  was  fin 
ally  settled  in  1808,  in  pursuance  of  a  suggestion  made  by 
the  court,  the  entry  showing  this,  dated  September  27, 
reading  as  follows:  "Discontinued  by  Plff.  on  the  De 
fendant's  paying  all  the  docket  costs,  and  the  Plff.  receiv 
ing  Three  hundred  dollars  in  full  of  his  Bill,  and  the  at 
tendance  of  his  witnesses,  and  of  all  demands— under  the 
recommendation  of  the  court,  per  writing  filed  with 
papers."  The  sum  named,  $300,  was  the  amount  of  the 
verdict  which  the  Supreme  Court  set  aside.  I  shall  men 
tion  this  case  again,  later  on,  in  connection  with  the  polit 
ical  history  of  Mr.  Ross, 


D  SENATOR     JAMES    ROSS. 

The  activities  of  Mr.  Ross  covered  the  whole  field  of 
legal  practice.  He  was  eloquent  before  a  jury,  whether  in 
a  civil  or  a  criminal  trial.  He  was  forcible  in  arguing  a 
question  of  law  before  a  bench  of  judges.  He  was  noted 
also  as  a  business  lawyer,  and  in  this  capacity  he  had  the 
management  of  very  extensive  property  interests,  in  the 
care  of  which  he  not  only  exhibited  the  highest  degree  of 
professional  and  business  skill,  and  the  utmost  fidelity,  but 
also  in  many  instances  exercised  great  kindness  in  render 
ing  to  clients  assistance  to  carry  them  through  financial 
straits.  I  am  told  that  by  his  skilful  management  and  as 
sistance  the  great  Denny  and  Schenley  estates  were  saved 
from  practical  bankruptcy  when  they  were  "land-poor." 
Among  the  clients  that  he  served  in  the  management  of 
business  affairs  was  George  Washington.  The  latter  own 
ed  a  large  amount  of  land  in  Western  Pennsylvania,  and 
Mr.  Ross  represented  him  in  connection  with  the  sale  of 
this  land.  An  incident  that  occurred  on  the  occasion  of  a 
visit  he  made  to  Philadelphia  in  August,  1795,  to  confer 
with  Washington  regarding  this  business,  is  interesting  as 
throwing  a  strong  light  upon  a  side  of  Washington's  char 
acter  which  his  biographers  and  panegyrists  have  largely 
ignored,  viz.  that,  although  usually  able  to  keep  his  feel 
ings  under  strict  control,  he  was  not  altogether  superior 
to  the  ordinary  passions  of  humanity.  At  that  time  the 
treaty  with  England  negotiated  by  Jay,  which  proved  to 
be  very  unpopular,  was  the  subject  of  much  discussion  in 
the  country,  and  Washington  had  been  assailed  with  much 
violent  and  vulgar  abuse.  His  Secretary  of  State,  Ed 
mund  Randolph,  had  just  published  a  pamphlet  regarding 
the  treaty,  by  which  the  President  was  incensed  to  an  ex 
traordinary  degree.  The  incident  referred  to  is  thus  nar 
rated  in  the  Philadelphia  Press  of  August  4,  1876,  quot 
ing  from  a  note  book  of  the  late  Horace  Binney  Wallace : 

"He  [Ross]  came  to  Philadelphia  to  settle  his  account, 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  / 

and  sending  word  to  the  President  that  he  would  wait 
upon  him  at  his  pleasure,  was  invited  to  breakfast  the  next 
morning.  On  arriving  he  found  all  the  ladies— the  Cur- 
tises,  Lewises,  Mrs.  Washington,  and  others— in  the  par 
lor,  obviously  in  great  alarm.  Mr.  Ross  described  them  as 
gathered  together  in  the  middle  of  the  room,  like  a  flock 
of  partridges  in  a  field  when  a  hawk  is  in  the  neighbor 
hood.  Very  soon  the  President  entered  and  shook  hands 
with  Mr.  Ross,  but  he  looked  dark  and  lowering.  They 
went  into  breakfast,  and  after  a  little  while  the  Secretary 
of  War  came  in  and  said  to  Washington :  i  Have  you  seen 
Mr.  Randolph's  pamphlet?'  'I  have,'  said  Washington, 
'and  by  the  eternal  God,  he  is  the  damnedest  liar  on  the 
face  of  the  earth ! '  and  as  he  spoke  he  brought  his  fist  down 
upon  the  table  with  all  his  strength  and  with  a  violence 
which  made  the  cups  and  plates  start  from  their  places. 
Ross  said  he  felt  infinitely  relieved ;  for  he  had  feared  that 
something  in  his  own  conduct  had  occasioned  the  black 
ness  of  the  President's  countenance.  The  late  Chief  Jus 
tice  Gibson  had  this  from  Ross  himself,  and  he  mentioned 
it  at  the  house  of  the  late  Mr.  John  W.  Wallace,  of  Phila 
delphia,  as  showing  that,  naturally,  Washington  was  a 
man  of  extraordinary  passions  and  sensibilities. ' ' 


In  1789,  five  years  after  his  admission  to  the  bar,  and 
when  he  was  only  twenty-seven  years  of  age,  Mr.  Ross  was 
elected  a  member  of  the  convention  that  framed  the  Penn 
sylvania  constitution  of  1790,  which  stood  until  remodeled 
by  the  constitutional  convention  of  1837-8.  In  the  conven 
tion  he  showed  himself  to  be  in  advance  of  the  age — at 
least  for  Pennsylvania — in  his  conception  of  religious  lib 
erty.  The  constitution  of  the  United  States  had  already 
provided  that  "no  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as 
a  qualification  to  any  office  or  public  trust  under  the  United 
States."  Mr.  Ross  believed  that  it  was  improper  for  the 
constitution  of  the  State  to  prescribe  religious  tests,  and 
that  it  ought  to  place  the  subject  upon  the  same  footing  as 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  Accordingly,  when 
section  IV  of  article  IX  of  the  proposed  constitution  was 


8  SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 

under  consideration,  reading  as  follows :  ' '  No  person  who 
acknowledges  the  being  of  a  God  and  a  future  state  of  re 
wards  and  punishments,  shall,  on  account  of  his  religious 
sentiments  be  disqualified  to  hold  any  office  or  place  of 
trust  or  profit  under  this  commonwealth",  he  supported 
and  voted  for  a  motion,  made  by  another  member,  to  strike 
out  the  words  * '  who  acknowledges  the  being  of  a  God  and 
a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments",  the  effect  of 
which  would  have  been  to  make  the  section  provide  simply 
that  no  person  should  be  disqualified  on  account  of  his  re 
ligious  opinions,  etc.,  thus  bringing  the  state  constitution 
into  exact  agreement  on  this  subject  with  that  of  the  na 
tion.  The  motion  did  not  prevail,  but  13  members  of  the 
convention  voting  in  its  favor  and  47  against  it,  and  the 
section  as  originally  proposed  became  a  part  of  the  consti 
tution.  The  same  provision,  in  almost  the  same  words, 
f  orms  a  part  of  our  present  state  constitution. 

For  his  vote  on  this  subject  Ross  was  furiously  assailed 
later,  when  a  candidate  for  Governor.  It  was  charged  that 
the  animating  motive  of  the  vote  was  to  be  found  in  hostil 
ity  to  religion  and  the  holding  of  atheistical  sentiments. 
Of  course  we  expect  that  in  the  heat  of  a  partisan  struggle 
for  office  a  man 's  political  opponents  will  paint  his  actions 
in  the  darkest  colors  and  misrepresent  his  motives ;  and  yet 
such  an  attack  as  was  made  upon  Ross  in  this  instance  in 
dicates  that  the  general  public  was  lacking  in  clarity  of 
mental  vision.  Very  likely  it  was  true  that  Ross  had 
abandoned  the  orthodox  theological  views  which  he  enter 
tained  at  the  time  when  he  thought  of  entering  the  minis 
try,  though  we  have  tLc  testimony  of  Dr.  McMillan  (which 
will  be  referred  to  further  on  in  this  paper)  that  he  never 
manifested  disrespect  for  religion ;  but  that  hostility  to 
the  introduction  into  a  constitution  of  a  provision  that 
would  impose,  or  permit  the  imposition,  of  religious  tests 
in  civil  government,  and  hostility  to  religion  itself,  are  not 
at  all  the  same  thing,  and  that  the  former  may  be  entertain- 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  9 

ed  by  one  who  is  earnestly  religious,  is  an  idea  which,  in 
the  past,  minds  not  accustomed  to  clear  thinking  seem  to 
have  had  difficulty  in  grasping.  In  the  year  of  grace 
1910,  when  Pennsylvania  has  recently  abolished  all  re 
ligious  tests  for  witnesses,  the  reasonableness  of  abolishing 
all  such  tests  for  office-holders  will  probably  be  obvious  to 
most  religious  men.  But  so  slow  has  been  the  development 
of  a  clear  conception  of  religious  liberty,  and  of  the  proper 
relations  between  religion  and  civil  government,  that  there 
are  people,  even  yet,  who  cannot  understand  how  a  man 
can  be  sincere,  while  objecting  to  the  enactment,  by  consti 
tution  or  statute,  of  religious  tests  of  any  kind  or  to  any  ex 
tent,  in  at  the  same  time  professing  to  be  a  devout  wor 
shiper  of  Almighty  God. 

In  1794  occurred  the  disturbance  generally  known  as 
the  Whiskey  Insurrection.  Of  this  incident  in  our  history 
we  people  of  Southwestern  Pennsylvania  are  not  proud, 
but  there  is  much  to  be  said  in  extenuation  of  the  conduct 
of  the  great  mass  of  the  people  concerned  in  that  affair. 
One  who  is  conversant  with  the  conditions  which  gave 
rise  to  that  movement,  will  view  the  lawlessness  that  was 
exhibited  with  a  degree  of  leniency  surprising  to  persons 
less  familiar  with  its  causes.  The  western  counties  were 
thinly  populated,  and  practically  without  manufactures. 
They  were  separated  from  the  markets  of  the  east  by  the 
Appalachian  mountains,  across  which  it  was  an  extremely 
difficult  and  costly  operation  to  transport  their  products, 
upon  the  inferior  roads  that  must  be  traversed,  while  their 
other  natural  outlet— by  way  of  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi 
rivers— was  obstructed  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  Spain 
held  the  right  bank,  and  the  mouth,  of  the  Mississippi, 
and  the  federal  government  had  not  yet  secured  by  treaty 
the  free  navigation  of  that  river.  The  result  was  that  the 
people  of  this  region  felt  compelled  to  turn  to  the  distilling 
of  whiskey  as  a  means  of  converting  their  grain  into  a  pro- 


10  SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 

duct  which  not  only  had  a  greater  value  in  the  market,  but 
by  reason  of  its  lessened  bulk  was  much  more  easily  trans 
portable.  Accordingly  stills  were  set  up  all  over  the  coun 
try,  and  almost  every  farmer  was  engaged  in  the  business 
of  distillation.  When  congress  imposed  an  excise  tax  on 
whiskey  as  a  revenue  measure,  they  believed  that  they 
were  going  to  be  ruined  by  it ;  whiskey  was  the  one  product 
available  to  them  as  the  means  of  carrying  on  trade  With 
the  east,  and  on  this  they  were  to  be  compelled  to  pay  a 
ruinous  tax  before  they  could  market  it.  This  view,  in 
connection  with  their  opinion  that  the  government  had 
been  neglectful  of  their  interests  in  failing  to  provide  for 
them  proper  outlets  to  market,  led  them  to  regard  the  excise 
law  as  an  unjust  oppression  of  the  west,  and  this  feeling 
was  intensified  by  the  traditional  hatred  of  excisemen 
which  they  had  inherited  from  their  ancestors  in  Scotland 
and  Ireland.  Moreover,  it  was  only  eighteen  years  since 
the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  principal  inciting 
cause  of  which  was  a  determination  not  to  submit  to  what 
was  regarded  as  unjust  taxation  imposed  upon  the  colon 
ists  by  England ;  and  the  people  had  fresh  in  their  recollec 
tion  the  honor  and  praise  that  had  been  generally  accorded 
to  the  men  of  Boston  who  by  the  exercise  of  force  had 
frustrated  the  English  scheme  for  the  collection  of  the  tax 
on  tea.  It  is  not  strange  that  the  common  people  were  un 
able  to  perceive  the  distinction  between  the  two  cases— 
that  the  resistance  to  England's  attempt  to  tax  the  colonies 
was  grounded  on  the  explicitly  asserted  principle  that 
those  taxes  were  unconstitutional,  whereas  the  congress  of 
the  United  States  had  an  indisputable  constitutional  right 
to  impose  an  excise  tax.  It  is  not  surprising  that  they 
should  resort,  misled  as  they  were  to  a  considerable  extent 
by  unscrupulous  demagogues,  and  should  regard  them 
selves  as  justified  in  resorting,  to  acts  of  violence,  by  way 
of  resisting  the  enforcement  of  what  they  viewed  as  an 
odious,  discriminating  and  unjust  law. 


. 

xN-.f 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  11 

James'  Ross,  with  other  leading  men,  seeing  clearly  the 
dangers  into  which  the  people  were  running,  endeavored 
to  moderate  and  restrain  the  popular  fury.  In  this  en 
deavor  he  attended  several  of  the  meetings  that  were  held, 
with  the  purpose  of  exercising  his  influence  in  favor  of  law 
and  order.  He  went,  for  example,  to  the  meeting  of  Au 
gust  1st  at  Braddock  7s  Field.  Armed  companies  of  militia 
asembled  there  in  large  numbers,  and  it  was  originally  de 
signed  to  have  them  attack  and  take  the  United  States 
garrison  at  Pittsburgh,  though  after  discussion  this  project 
was  abandoned.  The  part  taken  by  Mr.  Ross  on  this  oc 
casion  is  indicated  by  the  remark  of  Daniel  Hamilton,  re 
ported  by  H.  H.  Brackenridge  in  his  "Incidents  of  the 
Western  Insurrection",  viz.:  "What  do  you  think  of  that 
damned  fellow  James  Ross !  He  has"  been  here  and  all 
through  the  camp,  persuading  the  people  not  to  go  to  Pitts 
burgh.  ' ' 

The  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  nation's  laws  im 
bued  the  administration  with  the  feeling  that  the  sov 
ereignty  of  the  republic  was  at  stake— that  at  all  hazards 
the  supremacy  of  federal  law  must  be  maintained,  and  that 
the  opportunity  must  be  taken  of  demonstrating  to  the 
world  that  the  government  which  the  constitution  had 
erected  was  strong  enough  to  maintain  itself  against  sec 
tional  attacks.  Accordingly  measures  were  taken  to  or 
ganize  an  army  for  the  suppression  of  this  outbreak.  But 
before  starting  the  army  on  its  march  across  the  moun 
tains,  the  President,  at  the  suggestion  of  Chief  Justice  Mc- 
Kean,  in  August,  1794,  appointed  three  commissioners  to 
offer,  in  the  name  of  the  United  States,  amnesty  to  those 
who  had  been  resisting  the  government,  on  condition  of 
their  giving  satisfactory  assurances  of  their  submission  to 
the  laws  of  the  nation.  He  named  as  these  commissioners 
James  Ross,  who  had  earlier  in  the  year  become  a  Senator 
of  the  United  States ;  Jasper  Yeates,  a  Justice  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  Pennsylvania,  and  W'illiam  Bradford,  At- 


12  SENATOB    JAMES    BOSS. 

torney  General  of  the  United  States.  At  the  same  time  two 
commissioners  representing  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
were  appointed  by  the  Governor  to  accompany  the  federal 
commissioners.  The  State  commissioners  were  Thomas 
McKean,  the  Chief  Justice,  and  William  Irvine,  a  repre 
sentative  in  Congress  from  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  Boss  was  at  that  time  a  resident  of  Washington 
County,  and  this  county  was  the  very  hot-bed  of  the  Insur 
rection.  His  selection  to  serve  as  one  of  the  commissioners 
is  a  striking  evidence  not  only  of  the  prominence  he  had  at 
tained,  but  also  of  the  confidence  reposed  in  him  by  the 
federal  executive.  He  discharged  his  duties  as  commis 
sioner  in  such  a  manner  as  to  show  that  this  confidence 
was  merited. 

The  commissioners  assembled  at  Pittsburgh,  and  there 
met  a  committee,  known  as  the  "Committee  of  Confer 
ence",  appointed  to  treat  with  them  on  behalf  of  the  per 
sons  implicated  in  the  disturbances.  After  oral  confer 
ences  the  commissioners  and  the  committee  exchanged 
communications  in  writing.  In  a  note  dated  at  Pittsburgh, 
August  22,  1794,  and  signed  by  James  Ross,  J.  Yeates  and 
Wm.  Bradford,  the  terms  offered  by  the  commissioners 
were  stated  as  follows : 

"1.  It  is  expected,  and  required  by  the  said  commis 
sioners,  that  the  citizens  composing  the  said  general  com 
mittee,  do,  on  or  before  the  1st  day  of  September,  explicit 
ly  declare  their  determination  to  submit  to  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  and  [that]  they  will  not  directly  or  indirect 
ly  oppose  the  acts  for  raising  a  revenue  on  distilled  spirits 
and  stills. 

"2.  That  they  do  explicitly  recommend  a  perfect  and 
entire  acquiescence  under  the  execution  of  said  acts. 

"3.  That  they  do  in  like  manner  recommend  that  no 
violence,  injuries  or  threats  be  offered  to  the  person  or 
property  of  any  officer  of  the  United  States,  or  citizens 
complying  with  the  laws,  and  to  declare  their  determina 
tion  to  support  (as  far  as  the  laws  require)  the  civil  au- 


SKETCH    BY    MK.    JAMES    I.    BKOWNSON.  13 

thority  in  affording  the  protection  due  to  all  officers  and 
citizens. 

"4.  That  measures  be  taken  by  meetings  in  election  dis 
tricts,  or  otherwise,  [to  declare]  the  determination  of  the 
citizens  in  the  fourth  survey  of  Pennsylvania  to  submit  to 
the  said  laws  and  that  satisfactory  assurances  be  given  by 
the  said  commissioners  that  the  people  have  so  determined 
to  submit,  on  or  before  the  14th  of  September  next. ' ' 

If  these  conditions  should  be  fully  complied  with,  .the 
commissioners  stated  that  they  had  power  to  promise  and 
engage  as.  follows : 

"1.  No  prosecution  for  any  treason,  or  other  indictable 
offense,  against  the  United  States,  committed  in  the  fourth 
survey  of  Pennsylvania,  before  this  day,  shall  be  proceed 
ed  on,  or  commenced,  until  the  10th  day  of  July  next. 

"2.  If  there  shall  be  a  general  and  sincere  acquiescence 
in  the  execution  of  the  said  laws,  until  the  said  10th  day  of 
July  next,  a  general  pardon  and  oblivion  of  all  such  of 
fenses  shall  be  granted,  excepting  therefrom,  nevertheless, 
every  person  who  shall  in  the  meantime  willfully  obstruct, 
or  attempt  to  obstruct,  the  execution  of  any  of  the  laws  of 
the  United  States;  or  be  in  any  wise  aiding  or  abetting 
therein. ' ' 

Thirdly,  it  was  stated  that,  Congress  having  on  the  5tb 
day  of  June  preceding  passed  an  act  to  authorize  state 
courts  to  take  cognizance  of  offenses  against  the  excise 
laws,  the  President  had  determined  to  direct  prosecutions 
thereafter  to  be  brought  in  the  state  courts,  [so  that  inhab 
itants  of  the  western  counties  should  not  be  carried  to 
Philadelphia  to  meet  charges  in  the  United  States  court,! 
if,  upon  experiment,  it  should  be  found,  in  the  President7? 
judgment,  that  local  prejudices  or  other  causes  did  not  ob 
struct  the  faithful  administration  of  justice. 

Th^  "general  committee ",  mentioned  in  the  note  of  th^ 
federal  commissioners,  was  a  standing  committee 
composed  of  two  persons  from  each  township  in  the 
territory  affected,  which  had  been  appointed  by  a  meeting 


14  SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 

or  convention  of  delegates  held  at  Parkinson 's  Ferry,  now 
Monongahela  City.  This  committee  met  at  Brownsville  on 
August  28  and  29.  and  to  it  the  terms  offered  by  the  com 
missioners  were  submitted.  After  considerable  discussion 
it  was  rinaily  decided  to  ascertain  the  sense  of  the  commit 
tee,  upon  the  question  of  accepting  the  terms  offered,  by 
means  of  a  vote  taken  by  secret  ballot.  The  result  was  34 
yeas,  and  23  nays.  (Six  persons  afterwards  declared  that 
they  had  voted  in  the  negative  by  mistake.)  This  vote, 
though  exhibiting  a  lack  of  unanimity  in  the  committee,  is 
said  by  H.  M.  Brackenridge  ("Whiskey  Insurrection", 
1859,  page  229,)  to  have  "suddenly  changed  the  face  of 
affairs",  showing  that  the  supposed  majority  in  favor  of 
resistance  to  the  government,  which  the  friends  of  order 
had  been  afraid  to  antagonize,  was  in  reality  a  minority, 
and  emboldening  those  who  wished  for  an  accommodation 
on  the  basis  of  the  terms  offered  to  come  out  openly  in 
support  thereof.  It  was,  however,  only  what  we  would  now 
call  a  * t  straw  vote ' ',  and  when  the  committee  proceeded  to 
take  official  action,  instead  of  voting  to  accept  the  tenns 
unconditionally,  it  adopted  a  resolution  declaring  merely 
that  "in  the  opinion  of  this  committee  it  is  the  interest  of 
the  people  of  the  country  to  accede  to  the  proposals  made 
by  the  commissioners  on  the  part  of  the  United  States", 
and  followed  this  with  the  appointment  of  a  new  commit 
tee  of  conference  for  the  purpose  of  endeavoring  to  obtain 
some  modification  of  the  terms,  and  then  adjourned  with 
out  day.  The  view  the  commissioners  took  of  this  was 
that  there  had  been  a  failure  to  comply  with  the  conditions 
attached  to  their  offer.  Accordingly  they  informed  the 
new  committee  of  conference  that  they  regarded  their  pro 
posals  as  terminated.  But  the  result  of  a  joint  meeting, 
held  on  September  2nd  by  the  federal  commissioners,  the 
state  commissioners  and  this  committee  of  conference,  was 
that  it  was  agreed  to  give  the  people  one  more  chance ;  it 
was  arranged  that  on  September  llth  the  people  should 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  15 

assemble  at  their  voting  places  and  individually  sign  en 
gagements  that  they  would  henceforth  submit  to  the  laws 
of  the  United  States,  that  they  would  not  directly  or  indi 
rectly  oppose  the  execution  of  the  excise  laws,  and  that  they 
would  support,  as  far  as  the  law  requires,  the  civil  author 
ity  in  affording  the  protection  due  to  all  officers  and  other 
citizens. 

For  various  reasons  many  were  reluctant  to  sign  such 
an  engagement,  and  the  signatures  were  not  sufficiently 
general  to  be  regarded  as  satisfactory  to  the  government. 
The  result  was  that  the  army,  which  had  been  assembled, 
was  started  on  its  westward  march.  Upon  its  arrival  it 
met  with  no  military  opposition,  and  the  principal  service 
it  performed  was  the  arresting  and  guarding  of  persons 
accused  of  complicity  in  the  violations  of  law  that  had  oc 
curred  during  the  troubles. 

I  shall  not  go  into  the  question  whether  there  existed  an 
actual  necessity  for  bringing  the  army  hither,  nor  into  that 
of  the  necessity  or  propriety  of  the  military  inquests  which 
were  held  after  the  army  came. 

Mr.  Ross  was  able,  by  communicating  his  personal 
knowledge  of  various  matters,  acquired  by  means  of  his 
residence  at  Washington  during  the  period  of  the  Insur 
rection,  to  relieve  or  assist  in  relieving  from  danger  of  ar 
rest  various  persons  who  were  under  suspicion  of  criminal 
connection  therewith,  and  among  these  was  his  friend, 
Mr.  (afterwards  Judge)  Brackenridge. 

As  has  already  been  stated,  Mr.  Ross  became  a  Senator 
of  the  United  States  in  the  year  1794.  The  journal  of  the 
Senate  shows  that  on  April  2,  1794,  a  certificate  of  the  elec 
tion  of  James  Ross  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  was 
presented  to  that  body,  and  on  the  24th  of  the  same  month 
he  took  his  seat,  He  succeeded  Albert  Gallatin,  who  had 
entered  the  Senate  in  1793,  but  later  had  been  compelled  to 
vacate  his  seat  by  a  decision  that  he  was  ineligible  by  rea- 


16  SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 

son  of  not  having  been  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  for 
the  period  of  nine  years  preceding  his  election.  The  unex- 
pired  term  for  which  Ross  was  elected  ended  in  1797,  at 
which  time  he  was  re-elected,  for  the  succeeding  full  term 
of  six  years.  He  thus  served  continuously  as  a  Senator 
from  1794  to  1803. 

At  the  time  of  his  entrance  into  the  Senate  he  was  in  his 
thirty-second  year.  He  soon  became  a  prominent  figure. 
It  has  been  stated  that  on  February  20,  1795,  (at  which 
time  he  had  been  serving  for  less  than  a  year,)  he  was 
elected  president  pro  tempore  of  the  Senate.  This  may  be 
correct,  though  I  have  not  been  able  to  verify  it.  I  do  find, 
in  the  Annals  of  Congress,  that  he  was  elected  to  that  po 
sition  on  March  1,  1799. 

Jay's  treaty  with  England,  which  was  transmitted  to  the 
Senate  by  President  Washington  on  June  8,  1795,  and  the 
great  unpopularity  which  it  encountered,  have  already 
been  alluded  to.  In  negotiating  that  treaty  Mr.  Jay  did 
the  best  he  could,  and  got  all  that  it  was  possible  to  induce 
the  British  government  to  agree  to.  The  concessions  which 
he  obtained  fell  far  short  of  what  he  had  been  striving  for, 
and  of  what  it  was  felt  the  United  States  was  justly  en 
titled  to ;  but  it  was  a  question  of  agreeing  on  such  a  treaty 
as  could  be  obtained,  or  else  letting  the  differences  be 
tween  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  result  in  a  war 
for  which  we  were  unprepared.  The  signing  of  that 
treaty,  and  its  subsequent  ratification,  were  undoubtedly 
the  wise  and  proper  things  to  do.  But  it  was  roundly  de 
nounced  for  two  reasons:  first,  as  a  truckling  to  England 
and  a  shameful  surrender  of  our  rightful  claims,  the  ne 
gotiator  and  the  supporters  of  it  being  stigmatized  as 
friends  of  the  British  rather  than  of  their  own  country 
men  ;  and,  second,  as  an  affront  to  France,  the  friend  that 
had  aided  us  in  our  Revolution.  France  itself  took  this 
latter  view.  The  intensity  of  feeling  that  was  aroused  in 
this  country  is  indicated  by  a  placard  which  a  gentleman 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  17 

of  Boston  placed  upon  the  fence  in  front  of  his  property, 
reading :  i  i  Damn  John  Jay !  Damn  every  one  that  won 't 
damn  John  Jay !  Damn  every  one  that  won 't  put  lights 
in  his  windows  and  sit  up  all  night  damning  John 
Jay  !  !  !"  The  Federalist  party,  however,  stood  by 
Washington's  administration  and  secured  the  ratification 
of  the  treaty  by  the  Senate.  Mr.  Ross  was  a  man  of  strong 
Federalist  principles,  and  acted  with  his  party  in  this  mat 
ter.  His  own  individual  views  regarding  it  are  indicated 
by  a  conversation  recorded  by  Thomas  Jefferson  as  taking 
place  between  himself  and  Judge  Brackenridge  in  the 
year  1800.  Mr.  Jefferson  states  that  Judge  Brackenridge 
informed  him  that  after  the  negotiation  of  the  treaty  he 
was  told  by  Ross  that  there  was  a  party  in  the  United 
States  who  wanted  to  overturn  the  government  and  were 
in  league  with  France ;  that  France,  by  a  secret  article  of 
treaty  with  Spain,  was  to  have  Louisiana,  and  that  Great 
Britain  was  likely  to  be  our  best  friend  and  dependence; 
and  that,  on  this  information  he  [Brackenridge]  was  in 
duced  to  become  an  advocate  of  the  British  treaty.  The 
point  of  this  was  that  it  made  a  great  difference  to  the 
United  States  who  held  Louisiana,  which  then  extended 
along  our  entire  western  boundary:  Spain,  which  then 
held  it,  was  becoming  a  weak  power,  and  her  possession  of 
Louisiana  might  be  viewed  with  equanimity,  whereas  if 
France,  a  string  power,  should  come  into  possession  of  it, 
the  safety  and  integrity  of  the  United  States  would  be 
menaced ;  hence  the  wisdom  of  having  Great  Britain  for 
our  friend.  These  views  respecting  the  position  of  the 
United  States  as  between  France  and  Spain,  and  with  re 
spect  to  Great  Britain,  are  identical  with  those  which  Mr. 
Jefferson  himself  afterwards  expressed  when  President. 
He  wrote  to  Robert  R.  Livingston,  the  minister  at  Paris,  as 
follows : 

1 l  The  cession  of  Louisiana  and  the  Floridas  by  Spain  to 


SENATOK     JAMES    ROSS. 

France  completely  reverses  all  the  political  relations  of 
the  United  States,  and  will  form  a  new  epoch  in  our  politi 
cal  course.  There  is  on  the  globe  one  single  spot  the  pos 
sessor  of  which  is  our  natural  and  habitual  enemy.  It  is 
New  Orleans,  through  which  the  produce  of  three-eighths 
of  our  territory  must  pass  to  market,  France,  placing 
herself  in  that  door,  assumes  to  us  the  attitude  of  defiance. 
Spain  might  have  retained  it  quietly  for  years. 
The  day  that  France  takes  possession  of  New  Orleans 
.^  .  .  seals  the  union  of  two  nations,  who,  in  conjunc 
tion,  can  maintain  exclusive  possession  of  the  ocean.  From 
that  moment  we  must  marry  ourselves  to  the  British  fleet 
and  nation." 


The  storm  over  the  British  treaty  slowly  subsided,  and 
in  time  the  country  came  to  see  that  the  denunciations 
which  had  been  heaped  on  the  heads  of  Jay  and  Washing 
ton  on  account  of  it  were  wholly  unjust.  It  was  learned 
that,  so  far  from  regarding  it  as  a  triumph  of  British  di 
plomacy,  England  took  exactly  the  contrary  view  of  it.  In 
1812,at  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  begun  in  that  year,Lord 
Sheffield  remarked:  "We  have  now  a  complete  opportu 
nity  of  getting  rid  of  that  most  impolitic  treaty  of  1794, 
when  Lord  Grenville  was  so  perfectly  duped  by  Jay." 

France,  our  original  friend  and  ally,  soon  became  our 
enemy,  and  in  the  following  administration,  that  of  John 
Adams,  we  had  a  short  naval  war  with  her,  brought  on  by 
her  aggressions.  For  the  purposes  of  this  conflict  sev 
eral  war  vessels  were  built  in  Pittsburgh  and  floated  down 
the  Ohio  to  the  Mississippi.  One  of  these  was  named 
"President  Adams,"  and  another  "Senator  Ross." 

The  troubles  with  France  led  to  the  passage  of  the  alien 
and  sedition  acts,  which  the  Federalist  party  pressed 
through  Congress  in  1798,  and  which  proved  to  be  a  politi 
cal  blunder,  and  produced  a  reaction  that  contributed 
largely  to  the  subsequent  overthrow  of  that  party. 

As  the  presidential  election  of  1800  approached,  the  sub- 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  19 

ject  of  the  method  of  electing  the  President  and  Vice-Pres 
ident  as  prescribed  in  the  constitution  seems  to  have  be 
gun  to  arouse  discussion.  On  January  19,  1799,  Thomas 
Jefferson  jotted  down  the  fact  that  W.  C.  Nicholas  had 
told  him  that  in  a  conversation  with  Senator  Ross,  three 
or  four  days  previously,  regarding  the  subject  of  having 
the  states  agree  to  some  uniform  mode  of  choosing  presi 
dential  electors,  Ross  had  said  "that  he  saw  no  good  in 
any  kind  of  election.  Perhaps,  said  he,  the  present  one 
may  last  a  while."  On  its  face,  this  would  seem  to  indi 
cate  a  deep  distrust  of  popular  government,  though  evi 
dently  a  very  imperfect  report  of  the  conversation.  But, 
however  lacking  in  foresight  Ross  may  have  been  as  to  the 
endurance  of  the  general  system  of  elections,  he  had  a 
clear  vision  of  one  of  its  defects  and  of  the  dangers  in 
cident  thereto,  viz.  the  insufficient  provision  for  the  pass 
ing  upon  disputed  election  returns.  He  foresaw,  and 
made  an  effort  in  the  year  1800  to  provide  for,  just  such  a 
situation  as  arose  in  connection  with  the  election  of  1876. 
On  January  23,  1800,  he  introduced  in  the  Senate  a  res 
olution  for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  "to  consider 
whether  any,  and  what,  provisions  ought  to  be  made  by 
law  for  deciding  disputed  elections  of  President  and  Vice- 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  for  determining  the 
legality  or  illegality  of  the  votes  given  for  those  officers  in 
the  different  states."  On  January  24th  the  resolution 
was  adopted,  with  an  amendment  adding  "that  the  com 
mittee  be  authorized  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise,"  and 
Senators  Ross,  Laurence,  Dexter,  Pinckney  and  Liver- 
more  were  appointed  as  the  committee.  On  February  14, 
Mr.  Ross  for  the  committee  reported  a  bill  prescribing  a 
mode  of  deciding  disputed  elections  of  President  and 
Vice-President.  It  provided  that  each  house  of  Congress 
should  choose  by  ballot  six  of  its  own  members,  who  to 
gether  with  the  Chief  Justice  (or  in  case  of  his  disability 
the  next  senior  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court)  should 


20 


SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 


form  a  tribunal,  known  as  the  "grand  committee,"  with 
power  "to  examine,  and  finally  to  decide,  all  disputes  re 
lating  to  the  election,"  reporting  their  decision  to  the 
houses.  A  number  of  amendments  were  offered,  some  of 
which  were  adopted,  and  the  bill  was  passed  by  the  Sen 
ate  substantially  as  offered,  except  that,  instead  of  the 
Chief  Justice  (or  a  Justice)  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the 
thirteenth  member  of  the  grand  committee  was  to  be  a 
Senator  chosen  by  the  House  of  representatives  out  of  a 
list  of  three  submitted  to  the  House  by  the  Senate.  When 
the  bill  went  to  the  House,  a  select  committee  of  which 
John  Marshall  was  chairman,  redrafted  it,  making  es 
sential  changes  in  the  method  of  dealing  with  disputes 
relative  to  the  electoral  vote,  and  this  new  draft  passed 
the  House.  It  was  then  accepted  by  the  Senate  except  in 
one  particular,  the  Senate  making  an  amendment  to  which 
the  House  would  not  agree,  and  the  disagreement  between 
the  two>  houses  resulted,  in  the  failure  of  the  bill. 

As  will  be  noticed,  the  bill  creating  an  electoral  com 
mission  to  pass  upon  the  election  of  1876,  followed  in  a 
general  way  Eoss's  idea  of  constituting  a  tribunal  com 
posed  of  members  taken  partly  from  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  partly  from  the  Senate,  and  partly  from  the 
klupreme  Court 

The  election  of  1800  resulted  in  the  turning  out  of  the 
Federalist  party  from  the  control  of  the  government 
Thomas  Jefferson  was  chosen  President.  By  the  Feder 
alists  the  accession  of  the  party  of  Jefferson  to  power 
was  viewed  with  profound  misgivings.  They  entertain 
ed  sincere,  though  as  events  proved  mistaken,  forebod 
ings  as  to  the  future  of  the  republic,  believing  that  the 
country  was  about  to  be  ruined  by  the  substitution  of  rad 
ical  demagogism  for  wise  and  conservative  statesmanship. 
In  an  effort  to  make  sure  that  at  least  the  judiciary  shouLl 
be  secured  for  Federalist  principles,  they  passed,  by  a 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  21 

strict  party  vote,  within  three  weeks  of  the  commencement 
of  Mr.  Jefferson's  term,  an  act  considerably  enlarging  the 
number  of  federal  judges  and  to  some  extent  remodeling 
the  federal  courts,  and  the  new  judgeships  thus  created 
were  filled  with  Federalists  by  appointments  made  before 
Jefferson's  inauguration.  This  expansion  of  the  judi 
ciary  did  not  meet  with  popular  approval.  It  was  alleged 
to  have  gone  far  beyond  the  needs  of  the  country,  though, 
in  the  light  of  experience,  the  objections  made  to  it  on  this 
score  do  not  seem  to  be  very  weighty.  If  it  did  to  some 
extent  exceed  the  existing  needs,  it  was,  in  so  far,  but  a 
provision  for  the  expansion  of  business  which  the  rapid 
growth  of  the  country  was  steadily  bringing  about.  It  is 
probable  that  the  act  would  not  have  been  seriously  ob 
jected  to,  had  not  the  whole  scheme  been  viewed  as  a  de 
vice  to  forestall  the  new  administration  and  entrench  the 
Federalists  in  the  judicial  department  of  the  government. 
But,  viewing  the  matter  as  they  did,  the  Jeffersonian 
party  determined  to  get  rid  of  the  new  judges.  At  the 
first  session  of  Congress  held  during  Jefferson's  adminis 
tration  a  resolution  was  introduced  declaring  that  the  act 
creating  the  new  judgeships  ought  to  be  repealed.  After 
an  extended  debate  the  resolution  was  passed  and  a  com 
mittee  appointed  to  report  a  bill  for  that  purpose.  When 
the  bill  had  been  introduced,  and  came  up  for  considera 
tion,  the  debate  was  renewed.  It  was  occupied  princi 
pally  with  the  constitutionality  of  the  proposed  act.  Mr. 
Ross  made  a  forcible  speech,  maintaining  that  for  Con 
gress  to  pass  a  law  that  would  put  the  recently  appointed 
judges  out  of  office  would  be  to  violate  the  constitutional 
provisions  that  gave  all  judges  a  tenure  during  good  be 
havior,  and  made  them  irremovable  except  by  impeach 
ment  for  misbehavior.  It  would  be  constitutionally  prop 
er,  he  said,  to  pass  a  bill  providing  that  as  vacancies  oc 
curred  in  the  judgeships  no  new  appointments  should  be 
made  to  fill  such  vacancies,  and  the  offices  so  becoming  va- 


22  SENATOR     JAMES    ROSS. 

cant  should  thereupon  be  abolished ;  but  to  abolish  a  judge- 
ship  during  the  incumbency  of  the  judge  filling  it  was  in 
the  face  of  the  intention,  manifested  by  the  constitution, 
that  the  judiciary  should  be  independent  of  Congress.  If 
the  judgeships  in  question  could  be  abolished  by  Con 
gress,  why  could  it  not  abolish  any  other  judgeship  and 
thus  render  the  entire  judiciary  wholly  subservient  to  its 
will  (because  holding  office  at  its  pleasure,)  contrary  to 
the  constitutional  design  that  the  judiciary  should  be 
wholly  independent  of  legislative  control?  In  reply  to 
the  argument  that  it  was  not  proposed  to  remove  the 
judges  from  office,  but  to  abolish  the  office — a  very  differ 
ent  thing,  he  said,  in  substance :  You  admit  that  it  would 
e  unconstitutional  to  remove  a  judge  from  office ;  now7 
what  is  the  essential  difference  between  removing  the 
man  from  the  office,  and  removing  the  office  from  the 
man?  The  two  things  are  in  substance  and  effect  th •:» 
same,  differing  only  in  the  form  of  words  employed.  The 
result  of  this  bill  will  be  merely  to  put  these  judges  out  of 
office  and  transfer  their  duties  to  other  judges,  and  the 
form  of  expression  in  which  you  state  it  cannot  alter  the 
nature  of  the  act. 

Other  Federalist  members  of  the  Senate  argued  to  the 
same  effect,  but  these  arguments  did  not  succeed  in  pre 
venting  the  passage  of  the  repealing  bill.  It  went  through 
both  houses  and  was  approved  by  the  President. 

In  the  next  session  Mr.  Ross  presented  a  memorial  of 
certain  of  the  judges  affected  b^r  the  repealing  act,  assert 
ing  their  right  to  hold  office  during  good  behavior,  and 
asking  Congress  to  review  the  laws  relating  to  the 
judiciary  and  assign  them  duties  as  members  of  the 
judicial  department,  but  offering  to  submit  the  right 
claimed  by  them  to  judicial  examination  and  decision  as 
Congress  might  in  its  wisdom  prescribe.  The  memorial 
was  referred  to  a  committee  of  which  Mr.  Ross  was  one. 
The  committee  reported  a  resolution  directing  the  At- 


SKETCH    BY    MK.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  23 

torney  General  to  institute  legal  proceedings,  in  the  na 
ture  of  a  writ  of  quo  warranto,  to  test  the  right,  claimed 
by  the  petitioners,  still  to  hold  their  offices;  but  after  de 
bate  this  resolution  was  negatived  by  a  vote  of  13  to  15. 

The  excise  laws,  which  had  produced  the  Whiskey  In 
surrection,  became  a  topic  of  debate  in  the  first  session  of 
the  seventh  Congress.  Jefferson  in  his  annual  message 
had  suggested  that  the  time  had  come  when  the  internal 
taxes  could  safely  be  dispensed  with,  and  the  remaining 
sources  of  revenue  relied  on  to  provide  for  the  support  of 
government  and  the  discharge  of  the  public  debt ;  adding, 
however,  that  these  views  as  to  reducing  taxation  were 
formed  upon  the  expectation  that  a  sensible  and  salutary 
reduction  of  expenditures  would  take  place,  and  for  this 
purpose  the  civil  government,  the  army  a,nd  the  navy 
would  need  revisal.  A  bill  to  repeal  the  internal  taxes 
was  brought  in  in  pursuance  of  this  suggestion.  In  sup 
port  of  the  proposal  to  repeal  them  it  was  contended  that 
there  had  been  sufficient  reductions  of  expense  provided 
for  to  remove  the  necessity  for  continuing  these  taxes. 
Mr.  Ross  spoke  in  opposition  to  the  repeal.  He  ques 
tioned  the  accuracy  and  reliability  of  the  estimates  of  rev 
enues  from  other  sources,  and  of  reductions  in  expense, 
upon  which  was  based  the  assertion  that  the  internal  taxes 
were  no  longer  needed;  but  his  principal  argument  was 
that  the  repeal  would  be  a  violation  of  the  plighted  faith 
of  the  United  States.  He  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  internal  taxes  had  been  solemnly  pledged  for  the  pay 
ment  of  the  interest  and  principal  of  foreign  loans,  with  a 
promise  that  they  should  not  be  diverted  without  the  sub 
stitution  of  other  funds  of  equal  value.  ''He  called  upon 
gentlemen  to  justify,  if  they  could,  this  flagrant  breach 
of  public  faith,  which  was  contained  in  the  abolishing  of 
these  taxes  without  any  substitute  and  on  pretence  of  hav 
ing  made  savings  of  public  expense,  which  he  declared 


24  SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 

would  amount  to  little  more  than  savings  on  paper."  (An 
nals  of  Congress,  7  Cong.  1  sess.  p.  210.)  He  asserted 
that  the  repeal  of  these  taxes,  without  substituting  any 
thing  in  their  place,  would  he  a  blow  to  the  national  credit, 
as  it  was  a  violation  of  national  faith.  Mr.  Nicholas,  of 
Virginia,  having  suggested  that  since  the  pledge  referred 
to  by  Mr.  Ross,  we  had  greatly  increased  our  imposts  and 
pledged  them  for  the  public  debt,  and  this  should  equita 
bly  justify  a  release  of  the  internal  taxes,  Mr.  Ross  replied 
that  the  pledge  of  imposts  mentioned  by  Mr.  Nicholas  was 
simply  a  pledge  by  the  act  of  1798  of  surplus  revenue, 
whereas  by  the  acts  of  1791,  1794  and  1795  the  entire  in 
ternal  taxes  had  been  specifically  pledged.  Notwith 
standing  these  arguments  the  bill  passed. 

In  January,  1803,  there  was  an  argument  in  the  Senate 
upon  an  episode  connected  with  the  well  known  case  of 
Marbury  v.  Madison,  1  Cranch  137,  celebrated  as  the  first 
case  in  which  there  was  an  authoritative  announcement  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  that  it  had  the 
right  to  declare  void  an  act  of  congress  found  to  be  in  vio 
lation  of  the  constitution.  President  Adams  had  appoint 
ed  certain  persons,  among  whom  was  William  Marbury, 
to  be  justices  of  the  peace  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
The  Senate  had  confirmed  the  appointments,  and  the  com 
missions  had  been  made  out,  signed  and  sealed,  but  they 
had  not  been  delivered  to  the  appointees  at  the  time  when 
Adams  went  out  of  office.  Jefferson,  acting  on  the  idea 
that  the  appointments  were  not  complete  until  the  actual 
delivery  of  the  commissions,  countermanded  their  issue. 
Marbury,  claiming  that  his  appointment  was  complete, 
and  that  he  was  entitled  to  have  his  commission  delivered 
to  him,  instituted  proceedings  in  the  Supreme  Court  for 
a  mandamus  to  compel  the  Secretary  of  State,  James 
Madison,  to  deliver  the  commission.  The  Senate  was 
asked  to  pass  a  resolution  permitting  its  secretary  to  give 
a  certified  copy  of  the  record  of  its  action  confirming  the 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  25 

appointment,  in  order  that  this  might  be  used  as  evidence 
in  the  mandamus  proceeding.  Mr.  Howard,  of  Maryland, 
who  had  presented  the  petition  for  this  to  the  Senate,  re 
marked,  when  the  resolution  came  up  for  consideration, 
that  he  would  not  trouble  the  Senate  with  any  observa 
tions  upon  the  question,  as  the  request  was  so  reasonable 
that  he  concluded  it  would  pass  without  objection.  Much 
to  his  surprise,  however,  it  not  only  precipitated  an  ex 
tended  debate,  but  failed  altogether  of  passage.  He  had 
overlooked  the  fact  that  the  resolution  had  a  bearing 
upon  the  politics  of  the  day.  The  party  associates  of  Jef 
ferson  were  not  willing  to  permit  the  passage  of  this  o<r 
any  other  resolution  that  would  facilitate  a  proceeding  in 
the  court  presided  over  by  John  Marshall,  the  object  of 
which  was  to  question  an  administrative  act  of  President 
Jefferson.  The  resolution  was  opposed  and  argued 
against  by  a  number  of  administration  Senators.  It  was 
denounced  as  an  attack  upon  the  Executive,  and  an  at 
tempt  to  aid  the  judiciary  to  effect  an  invasion  of  the  Ex 
ecutive's  rights.  "It  is/'  said  Mr.  Wright,  "well  known 
why  this  certificate  is  requested.  It  is  to  aid  an  audacious 
attempt  to  pry  into  executive  secrets,  by  a  tribunal  which 
has  no  authority  to  do  any  such  thing ;  and  to  enable  the 
Supreme  Court  to  assume  an  unheard  of  and  unbounded 
power,  if  not  despotism.  It  is  to  enable  the  judiciary  to 
exercise  an  authority  over  the  President,  which  he  can 
never  consent  to.  It  is  well  known  that  the  persons  ap 
plying  are  enemies  to  the  President,  and  that  the  court  are 
not  friendly  to  him,  and,  under  these  circumstances,  to  in 
terfere  in  the  business  would  be  making  the  Senate  a  par 
ty.  ' '  The  resolution  was  supported  by  several  Federalist 
Senators,  among  whom  was  Boss.  He  contended  that  as 
there  was  nothing  confidential  about  the  action  of  the  Sen 
ate  in  confirming  the  nominations  in  question,  and  no  in 
junction  of  secrecy  had  been  imposed  in  relation  thereto, 
there  was  no  reason  for  withholding  a  copy  of  the  record 


26  SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 

of  the  action  taken,  when  it  was  represented  that  this 
would  be  material  evidence  in  a  cause  pending  in  a  high 
court  of  justice ;  that  the  giving  leave  to  take  such  a  copy 
would  not  commit  the  Senate  upon  the  merits  of  the  cause, 
or  even  upon  the  question  whether  the  copy  would  be  le 
gally  admissible  in  evidence— on  the  contrary,  there 
would  be  infinitely  more  force  in  the  allegation  that  by 
refusing  the  copy  the  Senate  would  be  undertaking  to 
prejudge  the  case;  that  this  being  a  public  record,  any 
person  interested  had  a  right  to  demand  a  copy ;  that  an 
arbitrary  refusal  would  not  extinguish  the  petitioner's 
right,  nor  would  it  defeat  the  suitor,  as  the  court  would 
either  admit  inferior  evidence  to  establish  the  fact  or  is 
sue  process  to  obtain  what  it  conceived  to  be  legally  at 
tainable,  and  the  Senate  would  be  in  the  awkward  situa 
tion  of  having  interfered  to  stop  a  proceeding  without 
having  the  power  to  accomplish  the  object.  In  reply  to 
an  argument,  made  on  the  other  side,  that  the  President's 
commission  was  the  sole  and  exclusive  evidence  of  the 
right  to  office,  Mr.  Boss  said  that  he  thought  it  his  duty  to 
enter  his  protest  against  this  newand  highly  dangerous  doc 
trine;  that  there  was  an  end  of  all  free  and  regular  govern 
ment  if  the  President's  commission  was  conclusive  evidence 
of  a  right  to  office,  or  his  proclamation  of  a  treaty  was  con 
clusive  evidence  that  it  had  become  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land,  notwithstanding  it  might  be  found,  on  investiga 
tion  of  the  Senate's  journals,  that  the  appointment  or  the 
treaty  had  never  been  constitutionally  consented  to  by 
that  body;  that  while  the  commission  and  the  proclama 
tion  were  good  prima  facie  evidence,  the  truth  of  the  case 
must  be  subject  to  inquiry  by  the  courts ;  that  if  the  extra 
ordinary  doctrine  that  had  been  advanced  were  to  be  real 
ized  in  practice,  the  transcendent  powers  of  the  President 
would  soon  leave  little,  if  any,  authority  or  security  to  the 
other  departments  of  the  government, 

The  resolution  was  negatived  by  a  vote  of  13  to  15. 


SKETCH    BY    ME.    JAMES    I.    BKOWNSON.  27 

In  the  instances  above  given  of  the  participation  of  Sen 
ator  Ross  in  the  debates  of  the  seventh  congress,  the  divi 
sion  among  the  members  was  on  party  lines,  and  the  earn 
estness  with  which  the  questions  were  debated,  on  the 
one  side  and  on  the  other,  was  largely  due  to  partisan  feel 
ing.  But,  partisan  though  the  debates  were  in  their  in 
spiration,  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  arguments  made  by 
Mr.  Ross  in  these  several  instances  were  upon  an  elevated 
plane:  he  stood  up  for  respect  to  the  constitution,  for  the 
sacredness  of  plighted  faith,  and  against  arbitrary  power. 

The  speech  that  gave  Mr.  Ross  his  greatest  fame  was  de 
livered  upon  the  question  of  the  navigation  of  the  Missis 
sippi  river.  Before  taking  up  this  speech,  it  may  be  well 
to  consider  the  history  of  the  events  leading  up  to  the  set 
tlement  of  that-  question  by  the  Louisiana  purchase. 

In  1817  James  Monroe,  then  President  of  the  United 
States,  made  a  tour  in  the  course  of  which  he  visited 
Pittsburgh.  A  reception  was  there  given  in  his  honor, 
and  in  connection  with  it  a  public  meeting  was  held,  pre 
sided  over  by  Mr.  Ross,  at  that  time  president  of  the 
select  council  of  Pittsburgh.  In  the  address  of  welcome 
with  which  he  opened  the  meeting  Ross  referred  to  the 
fact  that  the  distinguished  visitor  was  not  only  the  chief 
executive  of  the  United  States,  but  also  one  of  the  persons 
who  as  ministers  negotiated  the  Louisiana  purchase  and 
thu.3  secured  the  free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  In 
response  to  this  part  of  the  address  President  Monroe 
said: 

"The  gentleman  to  whom  this  country  owes  a  great 
debt  of  gratitude  for  the  purchase  of  Louisiana  is  now 
president  of  this  meeting.  We  always  differed  in  politics. 
He  is  a  Federalist,  I  am  a  Democrat.  It  was  he  who 
first  called  to  the  attention  of  President  Jefferson  the 
necessit}^  of  demanding  the  free  navigation  of  the  Missis 
sippi  river.  It  was  Senator  Ross  who  made  Pittsburgh 
the  '  Gateway  of  the  West/  " 


28  SENATOR    JAMES    BOSS. 

To  what  did  Monroe  refer  by  his  statement  that  it  was 
Boss  who  first  called  Jefferson 's  attention  to  the  necessity 
of  demanding  the  free  navigation  of  the  river!  Clearly 
he  could  not  have  meant  that  Jefferson  was  not  familiar 
with  the  importance  to  the  country  of  the  navigation  of  the 
river  until  Ross  brought  it  to  his  attention,  for  the  impor 
tance  of  the  Mississippi  as  an  outlet  for  the  commerce  of 
this  country  had  been  a  prominent  topic  of  public  discus 
sion  from  an  early  day.  In  the  treaty  of  peace  which 
closed  the  Revolutionary  War  our  commissioners,  princi 
pally  with  a  view  to  its  utilization  for  purposes  of  naviga 
tion,  insisted  on,  and  obtained,  the  recognition  of  the  Mis 
sissippi  as  our  western  boundary.  And  before  that  peace 
it  had  figured  in  negotiations  with  Spain  for  an  alliance, 
the  claim,  asserted  by  us  and  disputed  by  Spain,  that  as  a 
people  living  along  the  upper  waters  we  had  a  natural 
right  to  sail  through  Spain's  territory  to  reach  the  river's 
mouth,  being  one  of  the  matters  necessary  to  be  adjusted 
before  such  an  alliance  could  be  formed.  Again,  in  1787, 
when  negotiations  for  a  commercial  treaty  with  Spain 
were  on  foot,  the  subject  was  discussed  in  Congress,  Spain 
demanding,  as  a  condition  of  such  a  treaty,  that  the 
United  States  relinquish  all  claim  to  the  navigation  of  the 
river  through  her  territory;  and  a  proposal,  by  way  of 
compromise,  that  such  claim  be  relinquished  for  twenty- 
five  years  was  finally  consented  to  by  the  Spanish  minis 
ter,  but  the  project  fell  through  because  enough  votes 
could  not  be  had  in  Congress  to  ratify  a  treaty  containing 
such  a  provision.  Jefferson's  own  State,  Virginia,  whose 
boundary  at  that  time  was  on  the  Mississippi,  was  vitally 
interested  in  the  question,  and  it  was  much  discussed 
among  Virginians.  Jefferson  was  familiar  with  the  sub 
ject,  and  on  January  30,  1787,  he  wrote  to  Madison,  in  ref 
erence  to  the  proposition,  then  made,  that  the  right  of 
navigation  be  relinquished  for  twenty-five  years:  "The 
act  which  abandons  it  is  an  act  of  separation  between  the 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  29 

eastern  and  the  western  country."  All  this  was  long  be 
fore  James  Ross  entered  public  life  as  a  Senator.  In 
view  of  the  facts  just  stated  the  question  recurs,  what  did 
Monroe  mean  by  the  statement  quoted  above  from  his 
Pittsburgh  speech?  Possibly  the  clue  to  his  meaning  is 
to  be  found  in  the  citations  previously  made  from  Jeffer 
son's  writings.  As  we  have  seen,  Jefferson  in  the  year 
1800,  by  means  of  Judge  Brackenridge's  report  to  him  of 
a  conversation  with  Ross,  became  possessed  of  Ross 's  idea 
that  the  transfer  of  the  sovereignty  of  Louisiana  to  France 
from  Spain  would  alter  the  situation  of  the  United  States, 
by  giving  France  interests  antagonistic  to  ours,  and  would 
render  it  advisable  to  cultivate  the  friendship  of  Great 
Britain  in  view  of  France's  rank  as  a  strong  power;  and 
we  find  Jefferson,  after  his  accession  to  the  presidency, 
writing  to  Livingston  an  expanded  statement  of  the  very 
same  views  that  had  been  expressed  by  Ross.  Is  it  not 
likely,  then,  that  what  Monroe  meant  to  assert  was,  that 
it  was  from  Ross  that  Jefferson  derived  the  idea  that  it 
was  important  to  act,  with  a  view  to  securing  the  naviga 
tion  of  the  river,  before  France  would  take  possession  of 
Louisiana,  or  at  least  before  any  change  in  our  relations 
with  France  should  throw  any  fresh  obstacles  in  our  way ; 
and  that  it  was  due  to  Ross,  or  to  agitation  set  on  foot  by 
him,  that  Jefferson  was  led  to  initiate,  just  at  the  oppor 
tune  time,  the  course  of  action  which  resulted  in  the  Louis 
iana  purchase?  (As  we  shall  see,  Ross  himself  favored 
another  method  of  procedure  than  that  followed  by  Jef 
ferson.) 

In  1795  a  treaty  had  been  concluded  with  Spain  by 
which  that  country  agreed  that  the  navigation  of  the  Mis 
sissippi,  in  its  whole  breadth  and  from  its  source  to  the 
gulf,  should  be  free  to  the  citizens  of  both  countries ;  that 
citizens  of  the  United  States  should  be  permitted  for  the 
space  of  three  years  from  the  date  of  the  treaty  to  deposit 
their  merchandise  and  effects  in  the  port  of  New  Orleans, 


30  SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 

and  to  export  them  from  thence  without  paying  any  other 
duty  than  a  fair  price  for  the  hire  of  the  stores ;  that  either 
this  permission  should  be  continued,  if  found  not  to  be 
prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  Spain,  or,  if  not  so  contin 
ued,  they  should  be  allowed  to  have  upon  another  part  of 
the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  an  equivalent  establishment. 
By  the  treaty  of  1800  Spain  ceded  Louisiana  to  France, 
but  possession  was  not  delivered  in  pursuance  of  this 
treaty  until  1804.  The  Spanish  authorities,  still  in  pos 
session,  suspended  in  1802  the  right  of  deposit  at  New  Or 
leans,  which  had  been  continued  under  the  treaty  of  1795 
until  that  time,  but  refused  to  assign  any  other  place  upon 
the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  for  such  deposit,  in  compli 
ance  with  the  stipulation  of  the  treaty  providing  for  this  in 
the  event  of  a  withdrawal  of  this  right  as  to  New  Orleans. 
On  January  11,  1803,  Jefferson  sent  to  the  Senate  a  spec 
ial  message  nominating  James  Monroe  as  minister  extra 
ordinary  and  plenipotentiary,  to  be  joined  with  Robert  R. 
Livingston  as  minister  plenipotentiary,  "with  full  power 
to  both  jointly,  or  to  either  on  the  death  of  the  other,  to  en 
ter  into  a  treaty  or  convention  with  the  First  Consul  of 
France  for  the  purpose  of  enlarging  and  more  effectually 
securing  our  rights  and  interests  in  the  river  Mississippi 
and  in  the  territories  eastward  thereof."  As  the  terri 
tory  was  still  in  Spanish  possession,  he  also  nominated  Mr. 
Monroe  as  minister  extraordinary  to  that  power,  to  be 
joined  with  Charles  Pinckney,  the  minister  to  that  coun 
try,  for  the  purpose  of  treating  with  the  King  of  Spain  on 
the  same  subject. 

A  month  later,  on  February  14,  1803,  Mr.  Ross  ad 
dressed  the  Senate.  Referring  to  what  he  characterized 
as  "the  unjustifiable,  oppressive  conduct  of  the  officers  of 
the  Spanish  government  at  New  Orleans,"  in  suspending 
the  right  of  deposit,  and  to  the  fact  that  the  President  had 
sent  an  envoy  extraordinary  to  Europe  to  endeavor  to 
obtain  relief  from  the  situation,  he  stated  that  he  was 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  31 

convinced  that  more  than  negotiation  was  necessary— that 
more  power  and  more  means  ought  to  be  given  to  the  Pres 
ident,  in  order  to  render  his  negotiation  efficacious,  and 
that  he  desired  to  offer  certain  resolutions  upon  the  sub 
ject,  but  before  doing  so  would  explain  his  reasons  for  pre 
senting  and  pressing  them.  Declaring  that  "to  the  free 
navigation  of  that  river  we  had  an  undoubted  right  from 
nature,  and  from  the  position  of  our  western  country/' 
and  this  right,  and  the  right  of  deposit  in  the  island  of 
New  Orleans,  had  been  solemnly  acknowledged  and  fixed 
by  the  treaty  of  1795,  which  treaty  had  been  wrongfully 
and  insultingly  violated,  he  proceeded  to  show  the  vital  im 
portance  of  the  navigation  of  the  river  to  the  western  por 
tion  of  the  United  States,  and  the  concern  of  the  country 
as  a  whole  in  the  matter.  He  asserted  that,  as  experience 
had  shown,  the  security  of  paper  contracts  or  treaties  was 
too  feeble  and  precarious  to  insure  us  the  right  of  naviga 
tion,  and  it  was  his  firm  and  mature  opinion  that  this  right 
would  never  be  secured  while  the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi 
was  exclusively  in  the  hands  of  the  Spaniards :  from  the 
very  position  of  our  country,  from  its  geographical  shape, 
from  motives  of  complete  independence,  the  command  of 
the  navigation  of  the  river  ought  to  be  in  our  hands.  He 
therefore  contended  that  as  hostilities  had  been  offered  to 
us  by  the  wrongful  act  of  the  Spanish  authorities,  we 
should,  instead  of  awaiting  the  results  of  a  tardy  negotia 
tion,  seize  the  rights  of  which  we  had  been  deprived,  plant 
ourselves  upon  the  river,  fortify  its  banks,  and  invite  those 
who  had  an  interest  at  stake  to  defend  it:  that  when  in 
possession  we  should  be  able  to  negotiate  with  more  ad 
vantage.  He  warned  the  Senate  against  trifling  with  the 
feelings,  the  hopes  and  the  fears  of  those  who  inhabited 
the  western  waters,  and  of  the  danger  that  they,  should 
nothing  be  done  for  their  immediate  relief,  might  take  the 
matter  into  their  own  hands  and  act  on  their  own  initia 
tive.  A  reference  made  by  him  to  the  probable  outcome 


32  SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 

of  the  pending  negotiations  with  France  led  to  an  objec 
tion  that  he  was  trenching  upon  points  of  a  confidential 
nature,  and  a  demand  that  the  galleries  be  cleared.  Mr. 
Ross  said  he  would  not  proceed  with  closed  doors.  The 
Vice-President  ruled  that  the  doors  must  be  closed  at  the 
demand  of  any  Senator,  after  which  the  Senate  would  de 
termine  by  vote  whether  or  not  the  business  should  pro 
ceed  with  open  doors.  Accordingly  the  galleries  were 
cleared.  The  Senate  having  decided  that  the  discussion 
should  be  public,  Mr.  Ross  two  days  later  proceeded  with 
his  speech.  He  to  some  extent  repeated  and  amplified  the 
points  he  had  already  made,  and  concluded  by  moving  the 
adoption  of  the  following  resolutions : 

"Resolved,  That  the  United  States  have  an  indis 
putable  right  to  the  free  navigation  of  the  river  Missis 
sippi,  and  to  a  convenient  place  of  deposit  for  their  pro 
duce  and  merchandise  in  the  island  of  New  Orleans. 

"That  the  late  infraction  of  such  their  unquestionable 
right  is  an  aggression  hostile  to  their  honor  and  interest. 

"That  it  does  not  consist  with  the  dignity  or  safety  of 
this  Union  to  hold  a  right  so  important  by  a  tenure  so  un 
certain. 

"That  it  materially  concerns  such  of  the  American  cit 
izens  as  dwell  on  the  western  waters,  and  is  essential  to  the 
union,  strength  and  prosperity  of  these  States,  that  they 
obtain  complete  security  for  the  full  and  peaceable  enjoy 
ment  of  such  their  absolute  right. 

* t  That  the  President  be  authorized  to  take  immediate 
possession  of  such  place  or  places,  in  the  said  island  or  the 
adjacent  territories,  as  he  may  deem  fit  and  convenient 
for  the  purpose  aforesaid ;  and  to  adopt  such  other  meas 
ures  for  obtaining  that  complete  security  as  to  him  in  his 
wisdom  shall  seem  meet. 

"That  he  be  authorized  to  call  into  actual  service  any 
number  of  the  militia  of  the  States  of  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Ohio,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  or  of  the  Mississippi 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  33 

Territory,  which  he  may  think  proper,  not  exceeding  fifty 
thousand,  and  to  employ  them,  together  with  the  military 
and  naval  forces  of  the  Union,  for  effecting  the  objects 
above  mentioned. 

' '  That  the  sum  of  five  million  dollars  be  appropriated  to 
the  carrying  into  effect  the  foregoing  resolutions,  and 
that  the  whole  or  any  part  of  that  sum  be  paid  or  applied, 
on  warrants  drawn  in  pursuance  of  such  directions  as  the 
President  may,  from  time  to  time,  think  proper  to  give  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. ' ' 

The  resolutions  were  taken  up  for  consideration  on  Feb 
ruary  23rd,  and  were  debated  for  three  days.  In  the 
course  of  the  debate  Mr.  Ross  made  another  extended  and 
able  speech  in  support  of  the  resolutions.  In  response  to 
an  objection  that  these  resolutions  meant  war,  and  that  ne 
gotiations  should  be  tried,  and  exhausted,  before  resorting 
to  war  for  redress  of  grievances,  he  said  that  he  would 
agree  to  an  amendment  eliminating  any  direction  to  the 
President  and  giving  him  a  bare  discretionary  power.  In 
this  speech  is  a  remarkable  passage  exhibiting  a  broad, 
statesmanlike  viewy  of  the  value  of  Louisiana  that  was  la 
ter  to  win  the  acceptance  of  the  nation : 

"We  are  not  deliberating,"  said  he,  "about  the  right 
of  deposit  in  New  Orleans  merely,  nor  about  the  island 
of  New  Orleans;  we  are  told  that  we  are  to  look  for  new 
and  powerful  neighbors  in  Louisiana.  What  right  has 
Spain  to  give  us  these  neighbors  without  consulting  us? 
To  change  our  present  security  into  hazard  and  uncertain 
ty  ?  I  do  not  believe  that  Spain  has  a  right  to  do  so-. 

"What  are  the  limits  of  Louisiana?  It  extends  three 
thousand  miles  upon  your  frontier.  New  Orleans  is  ceded 
with  it.  Then  the  province  of  Louisiana  and  New  Orleans 
lie  between  the  Floridas,  and  the  other  Spanish  domin 
ions  on  this  continent.  It  is  not  difficult  to  determine  who 
will  command  and  own  the  Floridas.  They  must  belong 
to  the  master  of  Louisiana  and  New  Orleans.  Then  the 
owners  possess  the  lock  and  key  of  the  whole  western  conn- 


34  SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 

try.  There  is  no  entrance  or  egress  but  by  their  leave. 
They  have  not  only  three  thousand  miles  on  your  frontier 
in  the  interior  country,  but  they  have  the  command  of  your 
outlet  to  the  ocean,  and  seven  hundred  miles  of  sea  coast 
embracing  the  finest  harbors  in  North  America.  This 
makes  them,  in  fact,  masters  of  the  western  world.  What 
will  you  give  them  for  this  enviable  dominion  ?  .  .  .  . 
What  would  this  Senate  take  for  the  surrender  of  such  an 
establishment  were  it  ours?" 

The  result  of  the  vote  taken  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
debate  was  that  a  substitute,  offered  by  Mr.  Breck- 
inridge  of  Kentucky,  was  adopted  in  the  place  of  the  reso 
lutions  of  Mr.  Eoss.  This  substitute,  omitting  all  decla 
rations  as  to  the  rights  of  the  United  States  respecting  the 
Mississippi,  merely  provided  that  the  President  be  au 
thorized,  whenever  he  should  judge  it  expedient,  to  call 
out  80,000  effective  militia,  permitting  State  executives  to 
furnish,  as  a  part  of  this  detachment,  corps  of  volunteers ; 
that  an  appropriation  be  made  for  the  pay  and  subsistence 
of  such  troops,  and  for  defraying  such  other  expenses  as 
during  the  recess  of  Congress  the  President  might  deem 
necessary  for  the  securing  of  the  territory  of  the  United 
States;  and  another  appropriation  for  erecting  at  such 
place  or  places  on  the  western  waters  as  the  President 
might  judge  most  proper,  one  or  more  arsenals. 

In  the  course  of  the  debate  Mr.  Ross  had  expressed 
his  doubts  as  to  whether  much  could  be  hoped  for  from 
the  French  negotiations.  Entertaining  the  view  as  to 
the  value  of  New  Orleans  and  Louisiana  that  is  expressed 
in  the  quotation  given  above  from  his  last  speech,  he 
did  not  think  France  would  be  willing  to  part  with  any 
portion  of  what  he  characterized  as  "the  lock  and  key  of 
the  whole  western  country."  Had  he  been  aware  of  the 
motives  operating  upon  the  mind  of  the  First  Consul ; 
had  he  known  that  Bonaparte  was  anticipating  the  out 
break  of  another  tvar  with  England,  and  fearing  that  in 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  35 

the  course  of  that  war  England  would  wrest  Louisiana 
from  him,  Ross  would  have  thought  very  differently  of 
the  prospects  of  negotiation.  The  event  proved  that 
peaceable  negotiation  was  the  better  way.  But  the  nego 
tiation  was  originally  directed  toward  the  acquisition  only 
of  New  Orleans  and  the  territory  east  of  the  river;  and 
the  ambassadors  with  noble  courage  exceeded  their  in 
structions  when  they  signed  the  treaty  for  the  acquisition 
of  the  entire  imperial  domain  of  Louisiana.  Can  it  be 
doubted  (whatever  view  we  may  entertain  of  the  wisdom 
or  propriety  of  the  specific  proposals  embodied  in  James 
Ross's  resolutions  )  that  the  debate  which  these  resolutions 
brought  about,  and  the  views  respecting  the  value  of  Lou 
isiana  which  he  expressed  in  that  debate,  assisted  in  pre 
paring  the  minds  of  the  people  for  the  ready  acceptance  of 
that  treaty  and  in  paving  the  way  for  its  ratification  by 
the  Senate! 

The  Louisiana  purchase  was  one  of  the  most  mo 
mentous  episodes  in  our  national  history.  It  was  the  first 
step  in  the  march  of  expansion  which  has  carried  us  from 
the  Mississippi  to  the  Pacific  ocean.  Without  it,  the 
growth  of  the  United  States  into  a  wOrld  power  such  as  it 
now  is  would  doubtless  have  been  impossible.  For  the 
service  which,  as  Monroe  tells  us,  he  rendered  in  directing 
Jefferson's  attention  to  the  necessity  of  taking  the  action 
which  led  to  this  purchase,  and  for  his  work  in  preparing 
the  way  for  the  final  acceptance  and  success  of  the  treaty, 
we  may  well  echo  Monroe 's  words,  in  saying  that  to  James 
Ross  ' '  this  country  owes  a  great  debt  of  gratitude. ' ' 

On  March  3,  1803,  Ross  attended  the  Senate  for  the  last 
time.  The  next  day  he  became,  by  the  expiration  of  his 
term,  a  private  citizen. 

While  serving  as  a  Senator  he  had  twice  been  the  can 
didate  of  the  Federalists  for  the  governorship  of  Pennsyl 
vania—in  1799  and  in  1802,  being  defeated  each  time  by 


36  SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 

Thomas  McKean,  the  candidate  of  what  afterwards  be 
came  known  as  the  Democratic  party.  Five  years  after 
his  retirement  from  the  Senate  he  became  the  standard 
bearer  of  his  party  in  the  gubernatorial  election  of  1808, 
his  opponent  being  Simon  Snyder.  His  defeat  was  inevi 
table.  The  Federalists  were  a  waning  party,  fighting  in 
vain  against  the  Democratic  reaction  of  which  Thomas 
Jefferson  was  the  leader  and  exponent,  and  no  candidate 
representing  them  could  hope  for  success  in  that  election. 
The  campaigns  against  Ross,  however,  were  conducted 
largely  along  the  line  of  personalities,  rather  than  that  of 
a  discussion  of  party  principles.  He  was  attacked,  abused, 
and  vilified.  His  public  acts  were  ascribed  to  reprehensi 
ble  motives,  and  he  was  held  up  as  a  man  of  such  princi 
ples  as  to  make  it  improper  to  entrust  him  with  power. 
Remembering  certain  political  campaigns  of  slander  that 
have  occurred  in  our  own  day,  we  can  understand  how 
much  reliance  to  place  upon  personal  attacks  against  a 
candidate  a  century  ago  as  evidence  of  his  true  character. 
A  s  previously  mentioned,  his  vote  against  permitting  re 
ligious  tests,  in  the  constitutional  convention  of  1790,  was 
adduced  as  evidence  of  atheism  and  hostility  to  religion, 
and  it  was  argued  that  it  was  unsafe  to  place  in  the  hands 
of  a  man  of  such  tendencies  the  extensive  appointing  pow 
er  which  the  governors  then  wielded.  The  absurd  charge 
was  made  that  in  his  enmity  to  religion  he  had  sought  to 
cast  ridicule  upon  its  ordinances  by  administering  the  sac 
rament  to  his  dogs.  Under  date  of  August  29,  1808,  the 
Rev.  John  McMillan  signed  a  statement  which  was  pub 
lished  by  the  supporters  of  Ross  in  reply  to  this  charge : 

"This  is  to  certify  that  I  have  been  intimately  acquaint 
ed  with  James  Ross*,esq.,of  Pittsburgh,  for  more  than  thir 
ty  years;  that  I  never  heard  him  speak,  or  heard  of  him 
speaking  disrespectfully  of  religion  or  religious  persons; 
that  the  stories  which  are  propagated  respecting  him,  as 
being  a  deist,  and  prostituting  the  ordinances  of  the  Gos- 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  37 

pel,  I  believe  to  be  wholly  unfounded.  I  short,  I  know 
nothing,  nor  have  I  ever  heard  anything  against  his  moral 
character  that  could  in  the  smallest  degree  disqualify  him 
for  the  office  of  governor,  or  ought  to  be  objected  against 
him  as  a  candidate  for  that  office,  and  I  am  determined  to 
give  him  all  the  support  in  my  power,  and  hope  that  all 
the  friends  of  religion  and  good  order  will  do  the  same. 

"JOHN  MCMILLAN." 

"Wash.  County,  Aug.  29,  1808." 

The  result  of  this  publication  was  to  bring  out  at 
tacks  upon  Dr.  McMillan  himself  in  the  newspapers  op 
posed  to  Ross.  The  command  of  the  decalogue,  "Thou 
shalt  not  bear  false  witness, ' '  was  suggested  to  the  Doctor 
as  a  proper  subject  for  serious  study,  and  it  was  sought 
to  discredit  him,  as  a  voucher  for  the  character  of  RossT 
by  publishing  a  part  of  the  record  of  the  slander  suit 
brought  against  him  by  Mr.  Birch,  to  show  that  he  had 
been  a  defamer  of  the  latter. 

During  the  campaign  there  were  published  at  intervals 
in  the  "Aurora,"  of  Philadelphia,  the  leading  Jeffer- 
sonian  newspaper,  over  the  signature  of  Jane  Marie,  a 
number  of  communications  charging  Mr.  Ross  with  gross 
oppression  and  mistreatment  of  Mrs.  Marie  in  connec 
tion  with  the  former's  acquisition  of  his  property  on 
Grant's  Hill  in  Pittsburgh,  a  part  of  which  is  now  occu 
pied  by  the  Allegheny  County  court  house.  This  proper 
ty  was  purchased  by  Ross  in  1803  from  a  Frenchman, 
John  Marie,  the  husband  of  the  signer  of  these  communica 
tions.  In  these  publications  she  informed  the  public  that 
in  1803,  and  for  ten  years  previous  thereto,  she  had  lived 
with  her  husband  on  the  Grant's  Hill  property,  which  by 
the  taste  of  her  husband  and  by  her  own  industry  had  been 
converted  into  a  "little  paradise;"  that  her  husband  had 
entered  into  an  engagement  with  her,  which  was  entered 
upon  the  public  records  of  the  county,  never  to  sell  the 
property  on  Grant's  Hill;  that  on  January  3,  1803,  Mr, 


38  SENATOR     JAMES    ROSS. 

Marie  left  Pittsburgh  in  company  with  Mr.  Ross,  and  after 
wards  proceeded  to  France ;  that  about  the  end  of  March, 
1803,  on  his  return  to  Pittsburgh  after  attendance  in  the 
Senate,  Mr.  Ross  came  to  her  home  and  informed  her  that 
he  had  bought  the  property  from  her  husband,  to  which 
she  replied  that  Mr.  Marie  had  obtained  her  signature  to 
deeds  for  other  property  by  engaging  never  to  part  with 
this  one,  and  she  would  not  permit  Ross  to  have  it ;  that 
two  or  three  days  later  she  received  a  letter  from  Ross, 
dated  April  1st,  of  which  she  gave  a  copy,  the  substance 
of  which  was  that  he  hoped  on  better  advice  and  consider 
ation  she  would  see  the  propriety  of  giving  him  possession, 
and  that  he  could  not  consent  to  cancel  his  purchase  nor 
was  this  desired  by  Mr.  Marie,  and  her  continued  refusal- 
to  deliver  possession  ^vould  be  attended  with  serious  mis 
fortunes  to  herself,  closing  by  assuring  her  of  his  readiness 
to  do  anything  which  any  counsel  she  might  engage  should 
say  was  justly  and  honorably  expected  from  him ;  that  the 
"menaces"  of  Mr.  Ross,  contained  in  this  letter,  were  car 
ried  into  cruel  perpetration;  she  was  on  August  3,  1803, 
expelled  from  her  home  in  an  ir decent  and  barbarous  man 
ner — the  door  was  broken  open  with  an  axe,  she  was  torn 
from  her  bed  chamber  by  the  hair  of  the  head,  l  '  seized  by 
the  legs  by  a  vile  ruffian  of  the  name  of  Griffin"  and 
"dragged,  senseless  and  naked  into  the  public  street, 
where  (she)  lay,  an  object  of  horror  to  the  passengers,  who 
dared  not,  at  the  risque  of  life,  to  interfere  or  rescue ' '  her. 
All  this,  she  charged,  was  done  by  the  orders  and  direction 
of  James  Ross.  She  further  alleged  that  about  five  or  six 
months  later,  as  she  and  her  child  were  walking  one  even 
ing  past  her  former  residence,  then  in  the  occupancy  of 
Ross,  the  latter  sprang  forth,  an  enormous  whip  of  cowhide 
in  his  hand,  and  with  horrid  imprecations  fell  upon  and  at 
tacked  her  and  the  child,  beating  both  of  them,  and,  after 
breaking  upon  her  the  lash  of  the  whip,  clubbed  it  and 
beat  her  with  the  butt  into  insensibility,  inflicting  wounds 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  39 

the  marks  of  which  she  bore  upon  her  for  a  long  time. 
She  complained,  further,  that  Mr.  Ross  had  the  courts, 
magistrates  and  lawyers  all  terrorized,  so  that  she  was 
utterly  unable  to  obtain  any  redress  against  him. 

If  all  these  allegations  were  to  be  accepted  as  true,  they 
would  cast  a  great  stain  upon  the  character  and  reputation 
of  James  Ross.  It  is  patent  to  the  reader,  however,  that 
Mrs.  Marie's  statements  need  to  be  very  considerably  dis 
counted.  Evidently  and  manifestly,  this  woman  did  not 
write  these  newspaper  communications  herself;  it  is  plain 
that  they  must  have  been  prepared  by  a  political  writer, 
and  the  purpose  of  their  publication  was  avowedly  to  in 
fluence  the  voters  in  a  political  campaign.  These  circum 
stances,  in  connection  with  the  general  style  and  manner 
of  the  writing,  and  especially  certain  insinuations  which 
are  made  against  Mrs.  Marie's  own  lawyers,  the  principal 
one  of  whom  was  Henry  Baldwin,  afterwards  Mr.  Justice 
Baldwin  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  stamp 
her  statements  as  not  to  be  accepted  without  great  allow 
ance. 

Mrs.  Marie 's  charges  fall  into  two  distinct  divisions,  one 
relating  to  her  expulsion  from  the  Grant's  Hill  property, 
and  the  other  to  the  horsewhipping,  some  six  months  later. 

In  reply  to  the  first  branch  of  her  allegations  there  were 
published  statements  made  by  several  persons.  One  of 
these  was  signed  by  John  Marie.  In  it  he  said  that  after 
offering  the  property  to  other  persons,  who  were  not  will 
ing  to  give  the  price  he  asked  for  it,  he  finally  offered  it  to 
Ross  (without  telling  the  latter  that  he  intended  to  leave 
his  family  and  go  to  France)  and  Ross,  who  had  never  so 
licited  the  purchase,  agreeing  to  Marie 's  terms,  a  contract 
of  sale  was  entered  into ;  that  Marie  then  went  to  France, 
and  forwarded  thence  a  letter  of  attorney  to  Thomas  Col 
lins,  Steel  Semple,  John  B.  C.  Lucas  and  John  Johnston, 
authorizing  and  requiring  them  to  carry  his  contract  into 
effect,  to  receive  the  purchase  money  owing  upon  it  and  to 


40  SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 

invest  the  same  for  the  support  of  his  family.  Joseph  Bar 
ker  and  George  Stevenson  certified  that  before  making  the 
sale  to  Ross,  Marie  had  offered  the  property  to  them,  but 
they  declined  the  purchase,  thinking  the  price  too  great. 
Another  of  the  statements  published  was  made  by  John 
Wilkins,  Jr.,  of  Pittsburgh,  who  said  among  other  things 
that  Mr.  Ross  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  transaction  of 
putting  Mrs.  Marie  out  of  the  property,  which  was  man 
aged  by  the  attorneys  of  Mr.  Marie,  and  that  in  Pitts 
burgh,  where  the  circumstances  were  well  known,  her  story 
would  not  operate  in  the  smallest  degree  to  the  prejudice 
of  Mr.  Ross. 

Let  us  now  see  what  light  the  records  of  Allegheny 
throw  upon  the  history  of  this  affair. 

John  Marie  was  the  owner  of  outlot  No.  6  in  the  manor 
of  Pittsburgh,  containing  six  acres  and  fifty-three  perches, 
which  was  conveyed  to  him  by  the  proprietaries  on  May 
24,  1786.  This  embraced  substantially  the  whole  of  the 
blocks  in  the  present  city  of  Pittsburgh  lying  between 
Fourth  and  Fifth  avenue  and  Grant  and  Ross  streets.  On 
February  13,  1797,  he  signed  and  acknowledged  the  agree 
ment  with  Mrs.  Marie  to  which  she  refers.  It  is  recorded 
in  Deed  Book  6  at  page  448.  By  it,  in  consideration  of 
Mrs.  Marie 's  signing  a  deed  for  the  conveyance  to  George 
Stevenson  of  certain  other  property,  Marie  covenanted  and 
agreed  with  his  wife  that  he  would  not  at  any  time  * i  grant, 
bargain  or  sell,  lease  or  convev  to  any  person  whatsoever, 
for  any  consideration  whatsoever,"  outlot  No.  6  or  any 
part  thereof,  without  his  wife's  full  consent  and  approba 
tion.  By  this  agreement  he  did  not  give,  or  undertake  to 
give,  to  Mrs.  Marie  any  interest  in  this  property ;  he  mere 
ly  covenanted  and  promised  that  he  would  not  sell  it  to 
any  one  else  without  her  consent. 

On  January  14,  1803,  an  agreement  was  signed  by  and 
between  John  Marie  and  James  Ross,  which  is  of  record 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  41 

in  Deed  Book  No.  12  at  page  62.  By  this  instrument 
Marie  granted,  bargained,  sold,  etc.,  to  Ross,  his  heirs  and 
assigns,  outlet  No.  6,  and  covenanted  to  deliver  possession 
thereof  on  the  first  day  of  April  next  ensuing,  and  also  on 
or  before  said  day  to  make  a  good  and  sufficient  deed  of  con 
veyance,  clear  of  all  encumbrances;  further  to  deliver  to 
Ross's  order  certain  garden  implements,  and  a  certain 
cow,  and  to  leave  all  grates  that  were  in  the  house.  Tn 
consideration  of  this,  Ross  bound  himself  to  pay  $2,000  in 
hand  and  to  give  two  bonds  for  $800  each,  bearing  interest 
from  April  1st,  one  to  be  payable  September  1,  1803,  and 
the  other  March  1,  1804.  It  was  further  stipulated  that  if 
an  order  given  by  Ross  to  Marie  for  the  $2,000  should  not 
be  accepted  and  paid  by  the  drawees,  Thomas  McEuen  £ 
Co.,  the  whole  bargain  should  become  void  and  be  cancel 
ed.  Appended  to  the  instrument  is  a  receipt,  signed  by 
Marie,  for  a  bill  on  Thomas  McEuen  &  Co.,  for  $2,000  on 
ten  days '  sight,  and  two  bonds  for  $800  each. 

By  this  agreement  Ross  became  legally  entitled  to  pos 
session  on  April  1st,  1803.  Mrs.  Marie  not  being  a  party 
to  it,  he  would  take  subject  to  her  right  to  claim  dower, 
should  she  survive  her  husband;  but,  as  the  legal  owner 
of  the  property,  Mr.  Marie  had  the  power  to  sell  it  and 
deliver  possession  subject  to  the  dower  rights  of  his  wife. 
Nor  would  the  agreement  of  1797  between  Marie  and  his 
wife  interfere  with  the  exercise  of  such  a  power :  it  may 
be  doubted  whether,  in  the  then  state  of  the  law  of  married 
women,  the  agreement  was  legally  worth  anything  at  all , 
in  any  event  it  would  seem  not  to  be  specifically  enforce 
able  as  a  restriction  of  Mr.  Marie's  dominion  over  his  own 
property,  because  it  did  not  purport  or  undertake  to  give 
Mrs.  Marie  any  interest  therein,  and  the  prospective  dow 
er  interest  which  she  already  had  by  law  would  not  he 
interfered  with  by  any  sale  her  husband  might  make  with 
out  her  joinder.  If,  however,  we  lay  out  of  view  the  que«- 
tion  of  its  legal  enforcibility,  and  look  only  at  the  ethics 


42  SENATOR    JAMES    ROSS. 

of  the  transaction  by  which  this  sale  was  made  in  disre 
gard  of  Marie's  promise  not  to  sell  without  his  wife's  con 
sent,  two  remarks  concerning  this  are  to  be  made:  firs4, 
that  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  Ross,  at  the  time  when  he 
entered  into  the  contract,  was  aware  that  this  promise  had 
been  given ;  and  second,  that  the  divorce  record  to  be  men 
tioned  hereafter  indicates  that  Mrs.  Marie  was  chargeable 
with  such  a  failure  to  conform  to  her  duties  as  a  wTife  as 
would  absolve  Mr.  Marie  from  his  promise. 

At  No.  167  June  Term,  1803,  in  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  of  Allegheny  County,  Ross  instituted  an  action  >f 
ejectment  to  obtain  possession  of  the  lot  in  pursuance  oi 
his  purchase.  At  this  time  tha  old  practice  in  ejectment  by 
which  this  action  was  based  upon  a  supposed  fictitious 
lease,  and  fictitious  parties  were  named  as  plaintiff  and 
defendant,  was  still  in  vogue,  and  in  accordance  with  it  th  j 
case  was  entitled  "Richard  Fen,  lessee  of  James  Ross,  vs. 
John  Den,  with  notice  to  John  Marie,  tenant  in  posses 
sion."  On  August  4,  1803,  Steel  Semple,  Esq.,  appeared 
as  attorney  for  John  Marie,  and  confessed  judgment 
against  him  for  the  premises  described  in  the  declaration. 
Thereupon  a  writ  of  habere  facias,  commanding  the  sher 
iff  to  deliver  possession  to  the  plaintiff,  was  issued.  On 
November  15,  1803,  Mr.  Baldwin  appeared  for  Mrs.  Marie 
and  obtained  a  rule  to  show  cause  why  the  judgment 
should  not  be  opened  to  permit  her  to  make  a  defense. 
The  same  day,  on  hearing,  this  rule  was  discharged. 

On  November  15,  1806,  to  No.  90,  November  term, 
1806,  John  Marie  sued  for  a  divorce  from  Jane  Marie.  In 
this  proceeding  Mr.  Marie  was  represented  by  Mr.  Moun 
tain,  and  the  attorney  of  Mrs.  Marie  was  Mr.  Wilkins. 
The  case  resulted  in  a  decree,  entered  by  the  court  on  Au 
gust  14,  1807,  "that  the  said  John  Marie  be  divorced  from 
the  bonds  of  matrimony  contracted  with  the  said  Jane 
Marie,  and  that  their  marriage  henceforth  be  null  and 
void. ' '  Pending  this  suit,  Mrs.  Marie  had  presented  a  pe- 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  43 

tition  for  alimony,  which  was  docketed  to  No.  36  April 
term,  1807.  After  several  continuances,  this  petition  was 
disposed  of  by  the  laconic  entry,  i  i  Dismissed. ' ' 

Having  obtained  a  divorce,  and  thus  being  able  by  his 
own  deed  to  convey  a  complete  title,  Mr.  Marie  executed  a 
conveyance  dated  August  28,  1807,  two  weeks  after  the  de 
cree  granting  the  divorce,  by  which  he  transferred  to  Mr. 
Ross  the  legal  title  to  outlet  No.  6,  "in  order  to  complete 
and  carry  into  effect"  the  agreement  of  January  14,  1803. 

From  all  this  it  is  evident  that  domestic  infelicities 
which  had  developed  in  the  married  life  of  John  and  Jane 
Marie  were  at  the  bottom  of  the  whole  affair.  It  was  his 
marital  troubles,  apparently,  that  led  Mr.  Marie  in  Janu 
ary,  1803,  to  sell  his  property  and  depart  for  France. 
To  some  extent  the  husband  and  wife  may  be  regarded  as 
fighting  each  other  over  Mr.  Boss's  shoulders. 

Mrs.  Marie  says  that  her  expulsion  from  the  possession 
of  the  property  took  place  on  August  3rd.  The  record  of 
the  ejectment  suit  shows  that  the  writ  of  habere  facias,  the 
purpose  of  which  was  to  effect  a  transfer  of  the  possession, 
was  issued  on  August  4th.  The  thought  naturally  occurs, 
whether  there  can  be  any  error  or  confusion  of  dates  here, 
as  one  would  suppose  that  what  would  be  most  likely  and 
natural  to  happen  would  be  that  the  dispossession  of  Mrs. 
Marie  would  take  place  under  and  in  pursuance  of  the 
writ  of  habere  facias,  and  that  whatever  force  was  made 
use  of  would  be  brought  on  by  her  making  forcible  resist 
ance  to  the  execution  of  the  writ.  If,  however,  we  accept  the 
statement  that  Mrs.  Marie  was  expelled  on  the  third,  and 
consider  this  in  connection  with  the  statement  of  Mr.  Wil- 
kins  that  the  obtaining  possession  from  her  was  managed 
by  Mr.  Marie's  attorneys  and  not  by  Mr.  Boss,  then  it 
would  seem  that  the  transaction  of  the  third  was  the  tak 
ing  of  possession  by  agents  of  her  husband,  and  Mr.  Boss 
obtained  his  possession  on  the  fourth,  in  a  lawful  manner, 
by  means  of  legal  process.  But  Mrs.  Marie's  harrowing 


44  SENATOK    JAMES    BOSS. 

tale  of  cruelty  and  barbarity  is  drawn  in  such  high  colors, 
and  is  so  evidently  grossly  exaggerated,  that  one  cannot 
give  it  credence,  no  matter  who  is  to  be  regarded  as  respon 
sible  for  her  expulsion.  No  doubt  there  was  a  scuffle,  and 
no  doubt  in  resisting  the  setting  of  herself  and  her  belong 
ings  out  of  the  house  she  made  such  a  struggle  that  some 
injury  to  herself  would  inevitably  occur,  but  the  account 
published  in  her  name  has  colored  the  facts  with  a  view  to 
creating  the  desired  impression  upon  the  minds  of  the  vot 
ers.  Thus  the  statement  that  she  was  dragged  naked  and 
senseless  into  the  public  street,  is  no  doubt  merely  a  poetic 
expression  of  the  fact  that  in  the  scuffle  incident  to  ejecting 
her  some  of  her  clothing  was  torn,  and  the  further  fact 
that  her  ejection  was  not  accomplished  until  her  powers, 
were  all  expended  and  she  was  by  complete  exhaustion  in 
capable  of  further  resistance. 

A  similar  view  may  be  taken  of  the  second  division 
of  her  charges,  relating  to  the  horsewhipping  which  she 
alleges  was  inflicted  upon  herself  and  her  child  by  Mr. 
Ross  some  months  later.  Her  story  as  to  that  does  not,  to 
my  mind,  bear  upon  its  face  the  aspect  of  truth,  and  I  can 
not  believe  it.  It  may  be  true  that  there  occurred  at 
that  time  some  sort  of  a  scuffle  between  herself  and  Mr. 
Ross,  but  if  so  I  believe  she  began  the  fight  herself. 

The  reasonable  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  whatever  was 
actually  done  by  Mr.  Ross  in  the  matter  of  the  Grant's 
Hill  property,  was  but  the  assertion  and  enforcement  in  a 
lawful  manner  of  his  legal  rights.  Whether  or  not,  aside 
from  the  question  of  legal  right,  and  viewing  the  matter 
solely  from  the  standpoint  of  what  a  chivalrous  gentleman 
ought  to  and  would  do  in  the  circumstances,  he  merited 
any  blame  for  lack  of  forbearance  and  regard  for  the  situ 
ation  in  which  Mrs.  Marie  was  placed,  after  he  had  learn 
ed  of  the  engagement  her  husband  had  given  her  not  to 
part  with  this  property,  it  is  of  course  difficult,  by  reason 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  45 

of  our  very  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  facts,  to  say, 
though  in  this  connection  we  must  not  forget  his  offer,  in 
the  letter  he  wrote  her  on  April  1,  1803,  to  do  whatever 
her  counsel  might  say  should  be  justly  and  honorably  ex 
pected  of  him,  which  would  indicate  that  he  desired  to 
treat  her  fairly  and  considerately.  And  moreover  any 
other  disposition  would  not  be  in  accord  with  the  charac 
ter  which  persons  who  knew  him  intimately  attributed 
to  him. 

To  show  what  kind  of  a  man  James  Ross  really  was, 
I  may  here  mention  a  fact  for  the  knowledge  of  which  I 
am  indebted  to  our  worthy  President.  Mr.  Crumrine  in 
forms  me  that  some  years  ago  he  was  told  the  following 
story  by  a  gentleman  of  Pittsburgh.  An  ancestor  of  Mr. 
Crumrine 's  informant,  holding  a  tract  of  land  in  Alle 
gheny  county  under  a  conveyance  made  by  James  Boss, 
was  sued  in  ejectment,  the  action  being  based  upon  an 
adverse  title.  The  result  of  the  case  was  that  the  title  of 
the  plaintiff  in  that  action  prevailed,  and  the  title  which 
Ross  had  conveyed  proved  to  be  bad.  But  the  deed  which 
Boss  had  made  for  the  land  in  question  did  not  contain 
a  covenant  of  general  warranty,  and  accordingly  Boss  was 
under  no  legal  obligation  whatever  to  make  any  compensa 
tion  for  this  failure  of  the  title.  Nevertheless,  when  the 
litigation  came  to  an  end,  and  the  title  which  he  had  con 
veyed  was  finally  adjudged  not  good,  he  voluntarily,  of  his 
own  motion,  and  without  even  a  request  or  a  suggestion  that 
he  ought  to  indemnify  the  man  who  had  thus  lost  his 
land,  went  to  the  latter  and  handed  him  a  deed  for  anoth 
er  tract  of  land,  the  value  of  which  was  fully  equal  to  if 
not  greater  than  that  of  the  land  which  had  been  recovered 
in  the  ejectment  suit.  He  did  this  because  he  felt  that^ 
as  he  had  been  paid  in  good  faith  for  the  land  which  had 
been  swept  away  by  an  adverse  title,  it  was  the  fair  and 
honorable  thing  to  make  good  the  loss  thus  suffered,  even 
though  he  were  not  legally  bound  to  do  so.  One  who  will 


46  SENATOR    JAMES    BOSS. 

do  a  thing  like  this,  for  reasons  and  with  motives  such  as 
I  have  indicated,  shows  himself  to  be  a  man  of  high  prin 
ciples  and  a  keen  sense  of  honor. 

Speaking  of  the  character  and  manner  of  Ross's  busi 
ness  dealings,  the  " History  of  Allegheny  County,"  after 
referring  to  the  fact  that  he  had  money  to  lend,  and,  de 
siring  to  lend  it  safely,  was  extremely  careful  about  the 
security  for  his  loans,  (which  tended  to  create  the  idea 
that  he  was  of  a  mercenary  disposition,)  says  of  him: 

"But  he  never  oppressed  any  one,  and  always  main 
tained  his  integrity  as  a  man  and  a  lawyer.  .  .  .  Al 
together  he  was  a  man  of  great  intellect,  and  a  sound  law 
yer,  who  left  a  good  reputation  behind  him. ' ' 

In  another  place,  this  History  says : 

"It  was  the  peculiarity  of  Mr.  Ross  to  be  the  friend  of 
men  in  trouble,  and  when  he  had  money  to  lend  he  was 
ready  to  help  any  one  in  whom  he  had  confidence.  And 
he  was  no  Shylock.  He  never  exacted  a  heavy  rate  of 
interest.  When  money  was  worth  20  to  30  per  cent,  he 
stuck  to  the  legal  rate  of  6  per  cent.  He  never  demanded 
more,  and  would  accept  of  nothing  less.  And  he  always 
got  his  money  back,  or  its  equivalent  in  land.  His  kindness 
was  shown,  not  in  giving,  but  in  helping,  and  he  helped 
many  a  one,  both  then  [referring  to  the  financial  crisis  of 
1817]  and  long  afterward.  Among  others  he  helped 
[James]  O'Hara  and  delivered  him  from  the  fear  of  the 
sheriff  and  from  the  agony  which  pecuniary  pressure 
brings.  Ross  tided  him  over  that  terrible  depression,  and 
when  O'Hara  came  to  die  he  was  able  to  make  a  careful 
division  of  his  huge  estate,  free  from  the  burden  that 
would  have  broken  him  down  had  Ross  not  lifted  its  weight 
from  him. ' ' 

After  the  election  of  1808,  Mr.  Ross  did  not  appear  as 
a  candidate  in  either  State  or  national  politics,  except  that 
in  1816  he  received  five  electoral  votes,  from  Connecticut, 
for  Vice-President.  He  interested  himself,  however,  in 


SKETCH    BY    MR.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  47 

municipal  affairs,  and  from  1816  to  1833  was  president  of 
the  select  council  of  the  city  of  Pittsburgh.  During  all 
this  period  the  select  council  was  largely  Democratic,  and 
the  fact  that,  notwithstanding  this,  he  was  thus  kept  at 
its  head  is  a  striking  evidence  of  the  esteem  which  he  held 
in  the  community :  it  was  because  he  enjoyed  the  public 
confidence,  and  his  participation  in  managing  the  city's 
affairs  was  regarded  as  for  its  best  interests,  and  not  be 
cause  of  political  influence. 

He  practiced  his  profession,  and,  engaging  to  some  ex 
tent  in  land  speculations,  he  became  by  the  appreciation  of 
real  estate  values  possessed  of  considerable  wealth. 

In  1834,  for  the  consideration  of  $20,000,  he  conveyed  to 
the  commissioners  of  Allegheny  County  the  court-house 
square  in  Pittsburgh,  bounded  by  Fifth  Avenue,  and 
Grant,  Diamond  and  Ross  streets,  embracing  a  part  of  the 
Marie  property.  That  portion  of  this  property  which 
extends  from  Diamond  street  to  Fourth  Avenue,  between 
Grant  and  Ross  streets,  he  retained  until  his  death.  He 
resided  upon  this  for  many  years.  In  his  will,  which  is 
dated  October  5,  1841,  he  speaks  of  it  as  the  "piece  of 
ground  ...  on  which  I  lately  resided. "  He  was  at 
that  date  residing  upon  a  lot  in  Allegheny  City,  on  Stock 
ton  avenue,  east  of  Sandusky  street,  where  he  spent  the 
remainder  of  his  life.  He  owned  a  large  body  of  land  on 
the  Allegheny  river,  containing  between  2,000  and  3,000 
acres,  a  part  of  which  is  now  occupied  by  the  town  of 
Aspinwall.  In  the  center  of  this  tract  he  built,  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  second  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century,  a  man 
sion  which  he  used  as  a  country  residence.  It  is  now  the 
residence  of  Robert  C.  Hall,  who  owns,  in  connection  with 
it,  about  five  hundred  acres  of  the  Ross  land. 

His  life  covered  an  interesting  period  in  the  develop 
ment  of  what  is  known  in  the  business  world  as  the  ' '  Pitts 
burgh  district. ' '  The  date  at  which  he  became  a  resident  of 
Pittsburgh  was  less  than  a  year  after  the  original  incor- 


48  SENATOR    JAMES    BOSS. 

poration  of  that  town  as  a  borough  by  the  act  of  April  22, 
1794,  and  it  then  had  a  population  of  less  than  1500.  In 
deed,  the  returns  of  the  preceding  census  showed  that  the 
entire  county  of  Allegheny,  which  at  that  time  embraced 
the  present  counties  of  Armstrong,  Beaver,  Butler,  Craw 
ford,  Erie,  Lawrence,  Mercer,  Warren  and  Venango,  had 
in  1790  but  10,390  inhabitants.  He  lived  to  see  a  popula 
tion  of  about  50,000  in  the  two  cities  of  Pittsburgh  and  Al 
legheny,  and  of  about  130,000  within  the  limits  of  Alle 
gheny  County  as  these  had  been  reduced  by  the  organiza 
tion,  out  of  her  territory,  of  the  nine  other  counties  above 
mentioned.  In  1816  Pittsburgh  had  advanced  sufficiently 
to  receive  a  city  charter,  and  as  we  have  already  seen,  Mr. 
Ross  became  in  that  year  president  of  the  select  council  and 
continued,  in  that  capacity,  until  1833  to  take  a  prominent 
part  in  the  management  of  its  municipal  affairs.  In  this 
way,  as  well  as  by  his  connection,  legal  and  financial,  with 
various  enterprises,  he  assisted  materially  in  building  up 
what  has  now  developed  into  the  great  city  of  Pittsburgh. 
He  lived  to  be  eighty-five  years  of  age,  and  for  a  time 
preceding  his  death  his  mental  faculties,  as  well  as  his 
bodily  vigor,  were  much  impaired.  During  this  period 
he  is  reported  to  have  destroyed  many  letters  and  docu 
ments  which  he  had  received  from  President  Washington. 
Their  disappearance  is  doubtless  a  serious  historical  loss. 
Death  came  to  him  on  Saturday,  November  27,  1847.  On 
the  following  Monday  the  members  of  the  bar  of  Alle- 
k^cay  County  held  a  meeting  to  give  expression  to  their 
respect  for  his  memory.  It  was  presided  over  by  Robert 
C.  Grier,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  A 
series  of  resolutions,  presented  ,,v  Wilson  McCandless,  aft 
erwards  Judge  of  the  United  States  District  Court,  were 
adopted,  reading  as  follows : 

' '  The  senior  of  the  Pennsylvania  Bar  is  no  more.  James 
Ross,  celebrated  throughout  the  Union  as  a  lawyer  and  a 


SKETCH    BY    MB.    JAMES    I.    BKOWNSON.  49 

statesman,  departed  this  life  on  Saturday,  at  his  residence 
in  Allegheny  City ;  and  the  bar  of  Pittsburgh,  profoundly 
appreciating  his  great  talents,  and  varied  learning,  have 
assembled  on  this  occasion  to  do  honor  to  his  illustrious 
memory. 

1 1  With  Addison  and  Semple,  and  Campbell,  and  Woods, 
and  Foster,  and  Bai^vvin,  he  gave  character  and  reputation 
to  this  bar.  His  deportment  was  that  of  a  polished  gentle 
man,  and  his  forensic  eloquence  made  an  impression 
upon  the  minds  anu  ^earts  of  the  people  of  Western  Penn 
sylvania  that  will  not  soon  be  eradicated.  His  knowledge 
of  the  law  is  stamped  upon  the  reports  of  cases  argued  and 
determined  by  the  gigantic  intellect  of  that  early  period, 
and  the  journals  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  bear 
witness  to  the  greatness  of  his  statesmanship. 

Resolved,  That  the  event  we  deplore,  although  in  the 
course  of  nature  expected,  fills  us  with  grief. 

Resolved,  That  we  will  endeavor  to  imitate  his  vir 
tues. 

Resolved,  That  we  will  wear  the  badge  of  mourning, 
and  attend  his  funeral  in  a  body,  tomorrow  morning  at  9 
o'clock/' 

The  funeral  services  were  held  at  his  late  residence  in 
Allegheny  City,  on  Tuesday,  November  30.  They  were 
attended  by  the  judges,  the  bar  and  a  large  concourse  of 
people.  His  body  was  interred  in  the  Allegheny  Ceme 
tery  at  Pittsburgh. 

Mr.  Boss  was  married,  on  January  13,  1791,  to  Ann 
Woods,  a  daughter  of  George  Woods,  of  Bedford,  Penn 
sylvania,  who  was  a  colonel  of  the  Pennsylvania  troops 
during  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  and  a  prominent  official 
of  Bedford  County  under  the  first  constitution  of  the  State, 
and,  as  a  surveyor,  assisted  by  his  son  George,  laid  out 
the  town  of  Pittsburgh  in  1784.  John  Woods,  another  son 
of  Col.  Woods,  was  one  of  the  earliest  members  of  the  Al- 


50  SENATOR    JAMES    BOSS. 

legheny  County  bar.  Mrs.  Boss  died  at  Cornwall,  Pennsyl 
vania,  on  September  11,  1805,  in  the  thirty-fifth  year  of 
her  age,  having  been  born  on  January  13,  1771.  James 
and  Ann  Boss  had  three  children:  James,  Mary  Jane  an'l 
George  W.  Ross.  The  two  sons  died  unmarried.  The 
daughter,  Mary  Jane,  born  at  Pittsburgh  June  28,  1797, 
was  married  on  October  7,  1816,  to  Edward  Coleman  of 
Lancaster  and  Philadelphia,  who  served  in  the  assembly 
and  also  in  the  senate  of  Pennsylvania.  She  died  at  Lan 
caster  on  September  27,  1825,  leaving  three  children— 
Anne  Boss,  Harriet,  and  Mary  Jane.  The  only  one  of 
these  who  left  descendants  was  Harriet,  Mary  Jane  having 
died  unmarried,  and  the  children  of  Anne  (who  married 
George  W.  Aspinwall)  having  all  died  in  youth.  Harriet 
married  Eugene  A.  Livingston,  a  grandson  of  Chancellor 
Bobert  B.  Livingston.  (Of  the  latter  I  have  made  menti ori 
in  connection  with  his  ministry  to  France  and  the  nego 
tiation  of  the  Louisiana  purchase.)  She  had  two  children, 
Eugene  and  Mary  Coleman.  Eugene  died  in  1861,  at  the 
age  of  seventeen  years,  of  fever  contracted  while  serving 
in  the  Union  army. 

Mary  Cbleman  married  Maturin  L,  Delafield,  of  New 
York  City.    They  have  issue)  as  follows : 

1.  Maturin  L,  Delafield,  Jr.,  born  September  29,  1869, 
now  residing  a<t  St.  Moritz,  Switzerland. 

2.  Joseph  L.  Delafield,  born  March  19,  1871,  who  is  a 
lawyer  in  New  York  City. 

3.  John  Boss  Delafield,  born  May  8,  1874.    He  also  is 
a  practicing  lawyer  in  the  City  of  New  York.    He  has  one 
son,  John  White  Boss  Delafieid,  born  May  12,  1905. 

4.  Julia  L.  Delafield,  born  October  14,  1875,  now  Mrs. 
Frederick  William  Longfellow.     She  has  three  children: 
Julia  Delafield  Longfellow,  born  April  28,  1902 ;  Freder 
ick  Livingston  Longfellow,  born  August  18,   1903,   and 
Elizabeth  Delafield  Longfellow,  born  February  14,  1905. 


SKETCH    BY    ME.    JAMES    I.    BROWNSON.  51 

5.  Edward  Coleman  Delafield,  born  July  10,  1877,  who 
is  engaged  in  business  in  New1  York  City.     His  children 
are  Maturin  L.  Delafield,  3rd,  born  March  17,  1901 ;  Mar- 
garetta  Stockton  Delafield,  born  November  3,  1904,  and 
Edward  Coleman  Delafield,  born  February  14,  1906. 

6.  Mary  Livington  Delafield,  born  November  23,  1878. 

7.  Harriet  Coleman  Delafield,  born  May  7,  1880,  now 
the  wife  of  Jarvis  Pomeroy  Carter. 

8.  Eugene  L.  Delafield,  born  August  18,  1882,  a  gradu 
ate  in  mechanical  engineering  of  the  Stevens  Institute  of 
Technology. 

The  Delafield  family,  as  will  be  seen,  are  the  only  liv 
ing  descendants  of  Senator  Bo&s. 

The  name  of  James  Boss  is  commemorated  by  Boss 
street  in  Pittsburgh  and  by  Boss  township  in  Allegheny 
County.  Boss  County,  in  Ohio,  is  also  named  for  him.  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  his  career  commenced  in  Washington 
and  that  he  attained  eminence  and  became,  Senator  while 
residing  here,  the  town  of  Washington),  or  Washington 
County,  ought  to  give  his  name  to  some  street  or  municipal 
subdivision. 


52  SENATOR    JAMES    BOSS. 


HISTORICAL  SOCIETY   OF  YORK  COUNTY. 

Curator  and   Librarian, 
George  R.  Prowell. 


York,  Pa.,  March  14,  1910. 

HON.  BOYD  CRUMRINE, 

Washington,  Pa. 

MY  DEAR  SIR — Your  letter  and  the  newspaper  reached  me  on 
Saturday  last.  I  read  the  article  on  Senator  James  Ross  with  great 
interest.  It  is  by  far  the  most  complete  sketch  of  him  that  has  ever 
been  written.  The  author  made  a  diligent  study  of  the  life  and 
character  of  that  distinguished  statesman  before  he  prepared  his 
paper.  He  deserves  commendation  for  his  splendid  biography.  I  did 
not  find  an  error  in  the  paper,  which  is  written  in  an  excellent  style. 

When  you  publish  the  pamphlet,  please  send  to  the  Historical 
Society  of  York  County  at  least  two  copies.  I  would  like  to  have  more 
copies,  and  would  be  pleased  to  send  you  some  of  our  pamphlets  if 
your  Society  does  not  have  them  on  file  at  present. 

I  expect  to  see  you  in  Harrisburg  in  January.  The  session  of  the 
Federation  was  short,  lasting  only  two  hours. 

I  have  a  steel  portrait  of  James  Ross  and  his  birth  place,  hanging 
on  the  wall  of  the  large  room  in  our  new  Court  House,  occupied  by 
our  Society.  This  property  has  recently  passed  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  Ramseys,  who  are  descendants  of  a  sister  of  Senator  James  Ross. 

Very  truly, 

GEO.  R.  PROWELL. 


